Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Canterbury Gas and Water Bill.

Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Bill.

Bills committed.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

SOLDIER'S BRAVERY (AWARD).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any information in connection with the bravery displayed by Private Mott, 1st

Battalion the Essex Regiment, in Palestine when a bomb was thrown into the Jordania café in Haifa and fell at the feet of Private Mott, and he picked it up and hurled it through a window into the street?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The facts are as stated in the question, and the announcement of the award by His Majesty the King of the medal of the British Empire Order has already been made.

Mr. Thorne: A medal is all right, but will the right hon. Gentleman be inclined to have conversations with one of the officers who has a recommendation to make?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Any recommendation that might be made would, of course, be treated in the proper manner.

Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept a recommendation from me?

SURPLUS HORSES.

Brigadier-General Makins: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the personnel of mounted units which have been mechanised feel it a hardship that they are being deprived of most of their horses; and whether he proposes to afford such personnel any opportunity of purchasing Army horses rendered surplus by mechanisation?

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the personnel of mounted units which have been mechanised feel it a hardship that they are being deprived of most of their horses and forage allowance; and whether he proposes to afford such personnel any opportunity of purchasing Army horses rendered surplus by mechanisation?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. It is proposed, in the special circumstances, to give such personnel an opportunity to buy surplus Army horses at Government auction sales.

Mr. Ede: Does that include the troopers, or does it apply only to the officers?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: To both.

Mr. Ede: Will they be allowed to pay for them on the instalment plan?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Will they be at a reduced price?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: They are sold by auction, and it will be at the auction price, therefore.

Sir T. Moore: That is not a concession.

ANTI-TANK RIFLES AND LIGHT GUNS.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is satisfied that the present equipment of the Army in anti-tank rifles and light guns is equal in each type to that of Germany and France?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that they are the equivalent of the German and French corresponding weapons, both in type and quantity?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question about quality, and I have answered it. Of course, we do not pretend to have the same quantities as Continental armies.

RECRUITS UNDER AGE.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for War whether a birth certificate has to be shown when a recruit enlists in the Army; and whether, in view of the undesirability of enlisting boys under age, he will amend the recruiting regulations with a view to putting an end to this practice?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The recruiting regulations already provide that where there is the slightest suspicion that the recruit is under the age limit, full inquiries will be made before final approval.

Year ended 30th September.
Number struck off.
Annual amount.
Number Restored.
Annual amount.







£

£


1935
…
…
…
27
665
11
336


1936
…
…
…
20
597
5
191


1937
…
…
…
27
937
1
12

Mr. Day: Are these pensions generally refunded to the pensioners when application is made?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The short answer is that pensioners who fail to draw their pensions for a period of more than 12

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this soldier is now in trouble and declared in the court that he was only 16 years old last May and that if it had not been for enlisting so young, he would not have got into the trouble he is in now?

Mr. Macquisten: Is it not a fact that the educational facilities in the Army are far better than those in civil life?

PENSIONS.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of pensions awarded to soldiers that have been forfeited during the three years ended to the last convenient date through the pensioner failing to draw his pension for a period of 12 months; and the amount of money involved by such forfeiture?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the answer with the particulars required in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Pensioners who fail to draw their pensions for a period of more than 12 months do not thereby automatically forfeit their pensions. They are removed from the pension list until such time as they apply for their pensions, and are required to account for their failure to apply during the period in question. If they can do this satisfactorily, the pension is normally resumed with 12 months' arrears.

The following statement shows the numbers of pensioners struck off in the three years to 1937, and the numbers restored to the list, with the amounts.

months do not thereby automatically forfeit their pensions.

ROYAL ENGINEERS, SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE.

Major Harvie Watt: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in order


to obviate the loss of valuable tradesmen from the postal and transportation units of the Royal Engineers, Supplementary Reserve, he can arrange to increase the age-limits for compulsory discharge from these units?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Yes, Sir. In the case of Postal units the age limit for discharge of warrant officers, Class I, has been increased from 46 years to 50 years. In the case of transportation units specially selected tradesmen, who are now discharged at age 46, will be allowed to re-engage up to the age of 50, and thereafter, subject to War Office approval, for periods of one year at a time up to age 55.

Major Watt: Will the same concession be granted to those below the rank of warrant officer?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That is not the question on the Paper. If it is put down, I will consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY.

ORGANISATION (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Major Watt: asked the Secretary of State for War when he expects to receive the report of the committee set up to consider the organisation of the Territorial Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As this matter is in the hands of the committee itself, I cannot precisely say.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT DIVISIONS.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made with the accommodation for the Anti-Aircraft Divisions of the Territorial Army; whether any units are refusing recruits owing to want of suitable accommodation for training; and, if so, what steps are being taken to accelerate the provision of the necessary buildings?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): There are only 10 cases where sites have not been obtained. Such of the programme as remains to be completed is proceeding with the utmost possible despatch. Temporary accommodation has been provided in those cases where permanent accommodation is not complete, and I am not aware that any units are refusing

recruits owing to the want of suitable accommodation for training.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MARRIAGE LAW.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the strong public opinion in Scotland in favour of legislation to prohibit the commercialisation of marriages at Gretna Green and other irregular centres; and if it is the Government's intention to give effect to the recommendations of the Lord Morrison Committee which would make it compulsory for all marriages to be registered at State offices and thereby end the scandal of profiteering in these marriages?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I hope shortly to introduce a Bill which gives effect to certain recommendations made in the report of the Committee on the Marriage Law of Scotland to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman let it be known throughout the length and breadth of the land that these marriages are not legal until they are registered in Dumfries?

Mr. Mathers: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Scottish law in regard to the offspring of these irregular marriages is much more humane than the corresponding English law?

Mr. Macquisten: Will my right hon. Friend say that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) is quite wrong, and that these marriages are legal, even though they are not registered? If they are registered in the sheriff court, they preserve the evidence of the marriage.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are certain individuals who have gone through the regular forms of marriage who are not very happily married?

HOUSING.

Mr. McLean Watson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases has notice to remove from their houses been served on tenants of the Scottish National Housing Company at Rosyth; and whether steps are being


taken to ensure that alternative accommodation will be available for the displaced families?

Mr. Elliot: Notices to remove at Whitsunday have been served on 12 tenants whose houses are required for Admiralty employés for whom they were primarily built. I am informed that the houses are not controlled and that no obligation rests on the company to provide other accommodation. I am, however, in touch with the local authority with a view to seeing what can be done to mitigate any hardship that may arise.

Mr. Watson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the houses that are to be affected are the dearer rented houses, and as the Scottish National Housing Company have had difficulty in getting these houses filled originally, will he do what he can to make sure that no inconvenience or as little inconvenience as possible will be given to these tenants who are going away?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member will find that in the last part of my answer.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made to date in the building of houses by the housing association for the Special Areas?

Mr. Elliot: The association have approved sketch plans for about 600 houses, which will be built at Tannochside, Carluke, Holytown and Douglas, in Lanarkshire. At a very early date the detailed plans will be submitted to the county council and, where necessary, to the superiors for their approval. The association are making every effort to hasten the commencement of actual building.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Are the association investigating the possibilities of building many more houses?

Mr. Elliot: I think they are. They do not regard this as the final programme.

Mr. Buchanan: Does this apply to all Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman has only given information about Lanarkshire, but am I to take it that this association's work is confined to Lanarkshire?

Mr. Elliot: So far, yes, but it does not restrict itself to Lanarkshire, and several

other county and town councils have asked for houses to be erected in their areas.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of houses with a yearly rental between £35 and £45 in the Maryhill, Kelvingrove and Hillhead divisions of Glasgow, respectively?

Mr. Elliot: Figures in the Valuation Roll (which gives actual rents in the case of let houses) show that the total number of houses referred to is as follows:


Maryhill
…
…
633


Kelvingrove
…
…
1,783


Hillhead
…
…
1,593

Mr. Davidson: Does that reply refer only to let houses?

Mr. Elliot: No. The other rents are estimated, but actual rents are given in the case of let houses.

Mr. Mathers (for Mr. Robert Gibson): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that, of the insured members of the building trade aged 16 to 64 years in Greenock, 31.9 per cent. were unemployed at 13th December, 1937, and 25.3 per cent. at 17th January, 1938; that there is a serious shortage of housing accommodation there; and whether he has any proposals to make to the local authority for the purpose of increasing the housing accommodation available?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware that the figures are substantially as stated, but they include both skilled and unskilled workmen. The hon. and learned Member will be aware that one of the difficulties affecting housing progress at present is a shortage of bricklayers, and I am informed that on 14th February, the latest date for which information is available, there were no bricklayers unemployed in Greenock. With regard to the second part of the question, the Corporation have under construction or waiting commencement over 2,000 brick houses and they are considering the possibility of accelerating their building programme by the use of alternative methods of construction which make a minimum demand on the services of bricklayers.

Mr. Mathers: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the provision of


sufficient workers to increase the output of houses in Scotland is very largely a matter of organisation; and is that organisation beyond the wit of his Department?

Mr. Elliot: It is a matter for the organisation of the trade itself. There is a joint council in existence for that purpose.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received a report of the blackout air-raid precaution test held at Glasgow on 25th February; and, if so, is he satisfied with the measures taken?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. The test as a whole was a great success, although the presence of ground mist made it impossible to use aircraft to observe the effect of the lighting restrictions from the air. The test has shown that very considerable progress has been made in the organisation of the various air raid services, has given useful practical experience to the personnel engaged in it, and has provided information which will be most valuable to the local authority and to the central Departments in the further development of the services.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that officially notice or information has been given that in order to put out the gas-lit lamps in that particular area, the men employed had to start an hour before the sirens gave the warning, and have any steps been taken to obviate this very dangerous delay?

Mr. Elliot: I could not say; I have not fully examined the report.

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman examine that particular question?

Mr. Elliot: Certainly.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount paid in public assistance relief to old age pensioners in Glasgow for the years 1936 and 1937, respectively?

Mr. Elliot: The amount of relief paid to old age pensioners in Glasgow during the year ended 31st May, 1937, was

£355,186. I regret that the figure for the year ended 31st May, 1936, is not available.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authority are now paying practically as much as the State with regard to old age pensions in this area in public assistance relief, and will he not at least make some representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this very important question?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think that arises out of this question.

HUT, WIGTOWN.

Mr. Simpson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of a sub-committee of the Wigtown education committee, held at Stranraer on 6th January, 1938, where the convener of the committee was reported as the purchaser of a hut belonging to the authority; and whether he is satisfied as to the price and circumstances of the transaction generally?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that the transaction referred to has not been proceeded with and that the county council have now authorised their architect to advertise the hut for sale and to accept the best price obtainable.

PROPOSED PIER, ISLE OF LEWIS.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the position regarding the approved project for a pier at Portnaguran, Isle of Lewis?

Mr. Elliot: A proposal by the County Council of Ross and Cromarty to construct a pier at Portnaguran with the aid of a grant from public funds is under discussion. I understand that the question of providing an adequate local contribution is at present being investigated by the county council.

Mr. MacMillan: In view of the fact that this matter has been discussed for nearly half a century—certainly for over 40 years—will the right hon. Gentleman do the best he can to expedite the matter?

INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NORTH HILLINGTON.

Major Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he


can make any statement as to the progress which has been made in the development of the Scottish industrial estate at North Hillington?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that since its acquisition in June, 1937, 45 factories and five sites have been let on the North Hillington estate to 50 undertakings and that over 150 applications and inquiries are at present before the Industrial Estates Company. Six factories have been completed and 85 are under construction. Nine hundred persons are employed on the work of developing the estate and building factories and the contracts for the work amount to £650,000.

HERRING INDUSTRY.

Major Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Herring Board has considered the representations of the German importers with reference to the curing of herring during May, the freshing of herring during May, and the starting date for herring fishing in Shetland; and what reply has been returned?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that, apart from a statement that German importers do not propose to accept herring cured before 15th June, the matters referred to in the question have not been the subject of representations by these importers to the board. The question of an agreed starting date for curing is now the subject of discussion between the board and interests affected in Germany.

RENT RESTRICTION.

Mr. Westwood (for Mr. T. Johnston): asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the local authorities in the larger burghs and cities of Scotland have endorsed the official evidence tendered in writing by the Corporation of Glasgow to the Rent Restrictions Acts Committee in July, 1937, paper 53 B, paragraph 5, recommending the continuance of control of B-class houses under the Rents Restrictions Acts for at least five more years?

Mr. Elliot: The Corporations of Edinburgh and Dundee submitted independently evidence to the Rent Restriction Committee to the effect, in the case of Dundee, that the Rent Restriction Acts should be continued as they at present stand and, in the case of Edinburgh, that

decontrol should take place as soon as this could be done without hardship. The Corporation of Glasgow submitted that the provisions of the existing Acts should be continued in force for at least five more years. The Government's proposals, following the recommendations of the Ridley Committee, provide for the division of class B houses into two sections, decontrolling houses above £35 annual value in Scotland, and stopping the decontrol of houses below that figure. Since the publication of the Ridley Committee Report the Town Council of Dumbarton has sent me a resolution opposing in every way the recommendations of the Ridley Committee; and the Town Council of Kilmarnock has expressed the opinion that any proposal to decontrol rents is inopportune and has urged the Government to continue the present regulations on the subject.

Mr. Davidson: In view of these protests, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making an inquiry of local authorities all over Scotland in order to obtain their views?

Mr. Elliot: The inquiry has been held, and the decision has been announced.

Mr. Westwood: Can we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that when going into Committee on the Rent Restrictions Bill he will give the full facts in connection with Glasgow's case instead of trying to mislead the Committee as he endeavoured to mislead the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Elliot: It is rather hard that I should be accused of attempting to mislead the House of Commons without having an opportunity of replying.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member can reply if he cares to do so.

Mr. Elliot: I repudiate entirely the suggestion that I have in any way attempted to mislead the House of Commons, and I challenge the hon. Member on the printed report of my speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Westwood: We shall endeavour to accept the challenge when we are in Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

OVERTIME WORK.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to a conference held by the Lancashire and Cheshire mineworkers protesting against overtime being worked, as it is contended it is a breach of the 7½-hours Act; whether his Department is keeping a careful watch on this overtime question; and whether steps are being taken to stop it?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I have seen references in the Press to a conference of this nature, in which it is stated that the Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation intend to approach the colliery owners in order to discuss the question. With regard to the second and third parts of the question, it is part of the duties of His Majesty's inspectors of mines to deal with infringements of the law in regard to hours of work in coal mines.

Mr. Tinker: Is the Minister aware that the miners are of opinion that the inspectors do not take this matter as seriously as they should, and will he impress upon the inspectors the need for watching this matter?

Captain Crookshank: I have explained what the duties of the mines inspectors are in dealing with infringement. What the opinion of the miners is I can receive, of course, only through the usual channels.

Mr. Batey: Is it not also the duty of the Secretary for Mines to deal with this question? Is the Minister aware that his predecessor started to deal with it, but that it has since been dropped?

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member is quite wrong. We have a special inspector to deal with this matter. What is more, I have received no representations from the Miners' Federation, the Lancashire Federation or from any other official body.

Sir John Haslam: Is it not a fact that the Lancashire and Cheshire miners are more satisfied now than they have been for a dozen years?

PRICES.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the

independent accountant's joint report on coal prices for November and December, 1937, in Scotland, issued on 31st January, shows that the average all-in cost of producing a ton of coal in Scotland, for sale at the pit-head, is 13s. 1¼d. per ton; and what action he intends to take to protect consumers in Glasgow and the West of Scotland, who are paying 30s. to 45s. a ton for coal bought in small lots?

Captain Crookshank: I am aware that the wages ascertainment for Scotland gave for the month of December last an average cost of production per ton of coal raised and weighed at the pit-head of 13s. 1¼d. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a question asked by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) on 17th February.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the coalowners made a net profit of 2s. 5½d. per ton in Scotland in January, exclusive of gains from selling agencies and byproducts; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to curtail these profits so that working-class households may be able to buy coal at prices within their means?

Captain Crookshank: I understand that the wages ascertainment for Scotland showed a credit balance of approximately 2s. 5½d. per ton for December last. In January, the credit balance was lower, being approximately 2s. 1d. per ton. It is not proposed to introduce legislation on this subject.

Mr. Kirkwood: What satisfaction can we have in putting down these questions? In a previous reply the Minister referred to a reply which had been given by the Prime Minister. Now, when we put a further question to him, the Minister whose office it is, and who is responsible for this matter, refers us back to the Prime Minister. What is the use of the Secretary for Mines?

Mr. H. G. Williams: When some of us proposed an inquiry into this matter, did not the Labour party vote against us?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (NATIVES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has


now been informed as to the nature of the permanent policy of the Government of the Union of South Africa towards all South African natives, whether at present living within the territories of the Union or within the territories of the Protectorates; and whether he will give this information to the House?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the report of the Union Native Affairs Commission for 1936, which contains an account of recent Union native legislation, and also a copy of the last report of the Department of Native Affairs. As regards the High Commission Territories, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my Noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 2nd November.

Mr. Mander: Does the policy referred to by the right hon. Gentleman represent the permanent policy of the South African Government with regard to the native question?

Mr. MacDonald: If the hon. Gentleman will study the document I think he will find the answer to that question.

Mr. Mander: Cannot the Minister give an answer himself?

Mr. MacDonald: It is not for me to answer what is the policy of the Union of South Africa. That policy was laid down in the document published by the Union Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADA (COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT BILL).

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the Copyright Amendment Bill now before the Canadian Parliament; and, in view of the apprehension created among composers of music in this country; whether he will obtain a copy of the Bill and place it in the Library of this House?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Yes, Sir. I have arranged for a copy of the Canadian Copyright Amendment Bill to which my hon. Friend refers to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Williams: Would my right hon. Friend consult with the President of the Board of Trade as to the possible effect of this Measure upon British publishers of music, should it become law?

Mr. MacDonald: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWFOUNDLAND (RURAL RECONSTRUCTION).

Mr. Lunn: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can give any information as to the causes of the delay in the work of the department of rural reconstruction set up in Newfoundland?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The Department was set up last year in connection with the Commission of Government's long-term proposals in regard to agricultural development, land settlement and the reorganisation on a more secure basis of village life in general. It has made progress with various measures such as the organisation of co-operative activities, land reclamation and livestock improvement. As regards the main programme, however, it was felt that further investigation and advice were needed before definite steps were instituted. On the scientific side—more particularly in relation to land reclamation—arrangements were made last autumn for Professor J. A. Hanley of Armstrong College, a distinguished soil expert, to pay a short visit to Newfoundland. His report is now under consideration by the Newfoundland Government. As regards the more general side, it has been arranged, at the request of the Commission, that an officer of the Ministry of Agriculture here should be lent to Newfoundland to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the whole field of rural reconstruction in the island. He will leave for Newfoundland very shortly.

Mr. Lunn: When are we likely to have a report of anything that is taking place in land settlement and any of the other things connected with rural reconstruction?

Mr. MacDonald: Anything there is to report of activity during the last 12 months will be contained in the annual report which is normally published a little later in the year.

Mr. Louis Smith: Having regard to the need of this Dominion for guidance and help from this country's representatives, will the Minister urge upon them the necessity of there being no further delay in the matter?

Mr. MacDonald: My answer indicated that there will be no delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN POLICY (DOMINIONS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Dominions have been consulted with regard to the position arising out of recent changes in foreign policy; and what communications have been received from them on the subject?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I cannot accept the assumption underlying the first part of the question. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to similar questions asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) and the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher).

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that fundamental differences have been disclosed and that the Prime Minister has abandoned collective security, may we ask whether the Dominions are satisfied with this radical departure in foreign policy?

Mr. MacDonald: I think the hon. Gentleman will see from newspaper reports of what some of the Dominion Prime Ministers have said that they would not agree that there has been any fundamental departure.

Mr. Mander: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible date.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Prime Minister whether he has consulted the Dominions regarding the proposed conversations with the Italian and German Governments; and, if so, will he inform the House of the result?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): As regards conversations with Italy, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for

Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher). The position is similar as regards Germany.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of the fact that, according to the reply given yesterday, the Dominions have been informed by telegraph of the developments that have been taking place, and also that the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that the assent of the Dominions was not necessary until they were called upon to undertake active obligations, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he considers that to be a proper line to take in order to get proper co-operation between the Dominions and this country?

The Prime Minister: I see no reason to think the contrary.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: In view of the great importance of this matter, can the Prime Minister arrange to supply the House with copies of the telegrams and of the replies to them received from the Dominions?

Mr. Jenkins: May I ask, further, whether this action is in accordance with the consultations that took place at the Imperial Conference last summer?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Sir Joseph Nall: Are there any grounds for supposing that the Dominions have asked the hon. Gentleman to put these questions?

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL APPEAL TRIBUNAL.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs particulars of any occasion on which an arbitral tribunal has been set up according to the recommendations of the Imperial Conference of 1930, as stated on page 23 of Command Paper 3717?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on this point to the question by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 30th November last.

Mr. Day: Does the machinery still remain in existence so that the original recommendation can be carried out?

Mr. MacDonald: The hon. Gentleman will see from the question and answer to which I have referred him that no machinery exists. The body referred to was an ad hoc body.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he now has information respecting the number of times corporal punishment was administered to native prisoners in Northern Rhodesia during 1937, and the last quarter of that year?

The Comptroller of the Household (Captain Waterhouse): I have been asked to reply to this question. Corporal punishment was inflicted on 87 native prisoners in Northern Rhodesia during 1937, in all cases for prison offences. The punishment consisted in all cases of caning, and not whipping. I regret that specific figures are not available for the last quarter of the year, but the Northern Rhodesia Government are obtaining this information and I will communicate it to the hon. Member.

Mr. Sorensen: Can any representations be made suggesting that the number of punishments of this character shall at least be considerably diminished?

Captain Waterhouse: I will convey that request to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Sorensen: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

JAPANESE GOODS (MARKING).

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware of the reproduction of British designs and products by Japanese firms, and that in some cases the products are stamped in such a manner that they give people the impression that they are produced in Britain; and what steps have been taken or are contemplated to deal with this matter;
(2) whether he is aware that British ideas, designs, etc., in china and earthenware products have been copied by Japanese firms, are stamped in a misleading manner, and are imported into New Zealand; and what action is it proposed to take to deal with this question?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As the answer to these questions is somewhat long and technical, I will, with the hon. Member's

permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Protests have been made from time to time to the Japanese and other Governments against various attempts to pass off foreign goods as of British manufacture, by the use of false marks or labels and by other methods; and cases of this kind, if details are brought to my notice, will continue to receive my careful attention. On the other hand, it is for the owners to protect designs and trade marks by registering them in the countries in which protection is desired, and taking legal action against infringements of their rights. The owners of any design registered in the United Kingdom or in New Zealand have legal remedies against the sale there of goods bearing designs which infringe the copyright, and in both countries the import of any goods bearing marks calculated to deceive as to their origin is prohibited.

FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to prevent the whole of the large cinema circuits from falling under the control of one person, and particularly to prevent such combined circuits being sold or leased to any foreign interest without the consent of the Board of Trade?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): As recommended by the Moyne Committee, my right hon. Friend intends to watch the transfers of interests in British producing, renting and exhibiting units, but at the present moment he sees no ground for proposing legislation.

Mr. Williams: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary see the danger which now exists to independent cinemas, both as regards the prices that may be charged to them and as regards the difficulties that may be created for them in fulfilling their quota requirements?

Captain Wallace: I think it was for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, in the Debate the other day, gave an assurance that the Films Council would be asked to consider the possibilities of co-operative booking.

Mr. Williams: Have the Board of Trade any power to prevent the contingency referred to in the question?

Captain Wallace: At the moment I do not think they have.

Mr. Williams: Then they are helpless.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask what advantage the Board of Trade will derive from their observation of these transfers if they are carried on in the names of nominees, as they frequently are?

Captain Wallace: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question on the Paper.

Mr. George Griffiths: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether steps have yet been taken to ascertain whether the committee which has asked for an inquiry into the affairs of a film company is being financed by the whole of the signatories to the application or mainly by the head of an opposition company who desires to extend his control?

Captain Wallace: The application for the appointment of an inspector to investigate the affairs of the company to which the hon. Member no doubt refers is still under consideration. The Board of Trade are only concerned at present with the question of whether there is a prima facie case for inquiry under Section 135 of the Companies Act, 1929. No evidence has been submitted which would support the suggestion in this question, nor would such evidence necessarily invalidate the case for an inquiry.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it not possible for the Board of Trade to take some steps to see that this does not occur?

Captain Wallace: Any evidence that can be produced to the Board of Trade which goes to show that this demand for an inquiry is either frivolous or inspired by malicious motives, would undoubtedly

The following table shows the total declared value of merchandise imported into and exported from the United Kingdom in trade with Italy during each of the years 1913, 1925 and 1937.








Total Imports consigned from Italy.
Exports consigned to Italy.


Year.
United Kingdom Produce and Manufacture.
Imported Merchandise.








£'000
£'000
£'000


1913
…
…
…
…
…
8,127
14,610
1,012


1925
…
…
…
…
…
19,289
18,835
2,869


1937
…
…
…
…
…
7,822
4,941
635

NOTE.—Figures for the year 1913 relate to the trade of the British Isles as a whole; those for 1925 and 1937 relate to Great Britain and Northern Ireland only.

be taken into careful consideration by my right hon. Friend in deciding whether to appoint an inspector or not.

Mr. T. Williams: Would the Board of Trade, in an ordinary case, attempt to ascertain who were the signatories that were contributing?

Captain Wallace: The Board of Trade will take every step to see that the pro-visions of the Section are carried out; but I must point out to the hon. Member that the fact that all the signatories to an application of this kind have not contributed equally, or that some have not contributed at all, does not necessarily disprove the necessity for an inquiry.

ITALY.

Mr. Thorne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any information with regard to discussions with Signor D'Agostino, Director-General of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Trade, for assistance to Italy under the Export Credits Guarantee Department?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The negotiations on trade matters with Signor D'Agostino are making satisfactory progress. As I explained last week, in reply to the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price), they raise no question of extending credit facilities to Italy.

Mr. Reed (for Sir Arnold Gridley): asked the President of the Board of Trade the figures of exports to, and imports from, Italy for the years 1913, 1925, and 1937, respectively?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

COIR MAT AND MATTING INDUSTRY.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the large increase in the imports of mats and matting from India; and whether, with a view to preventing the extinction of the British coir mat and matting industry, he will introduce legislation prohibiting the import of Indian mats and matting?

Captain Wallace: I am aware that there has been an increase in the imports of coir mats and matting from India. The matter is being borne in mind in the trade negotiations with India, but my right hon. Friend is not prepared to introduce legislation prohibiting the import of these goods.

Sir A. Knox: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend see that at any rate this industry has adequate protection, in view of the fact that the Indian workers do not get nearly the same wages as the British?

ITALIAN TEXTILES.

Major Procter: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the importation of Italian cotton textiles into this country in the piece which are then laundered or made into sheets and sold as of British manufacture; and what action he proposes to take to prevent this counterfeiting of British goods in British markets?

Captain Wallace: I am informed that sheets made up in this country from imported material have been sold without an indication of the origin of the material, but it has not been brought to my notice that the sheets are sold as of British manufacture. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars of any such case, I will certainly consider whether action can be taken under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887.

Major Procter: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that I received a letter, dated 24th January, which I sent to the President of the Board of Trade, stating the experience of certain people who had purchased these goods as British goods?

Captain Wallace: I have seen that letter, but my hon. and gallant Friend appears to be making a rather different

charge in this question. If he will come and discuss the matter with me, I shall be very pleased to explain.

STATISTICS.

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to assembling all the necessary statistical information with regard to the contraction or expansion of trade, he will consider making arrangements for contractors to notify monthly the amount of actual expenditure in respect of building plans approved, and requiring Government contractors to notify monthly the amount of actual expenditure by them, including capital expenditure in respect of rearmament, also monthly returns from principal steelworks, shipbuilders, electrical manufacturers and contractors, road contractors, railways, and motor manufacturers, of the amount of actual expenditure and unfulfilled orders?

Captain Wallace: It would not be possible to obtain complete information of this kind without statutory powers. Partial information obtained on a voluntary basis would, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, be of no value for the purposes which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Mander: Would not information of this kind be very valuable in dealing with unemployment during the coming slump?

AIRCRAFT (EXPORT).

Sir J. Haslam: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many aeroplanes, military and civil, have been exported to the Scandinavian countries during 1936, and also 1937, giving if possible also the total from August last to date?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Thirteen each and seven.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many of the 300 military aircraft exported in 1937 were delivered in Spain and to whom they were consigned;
(2) the numbers and types of modern aircraft exported in 1937?

Mr. Hudson: During the year 1937, 507 complete aeroplanes of United Kingdom manufacture were exported from this country. I am not in a position to state


how many of these were of modern design or to indicate the types of aeroplanes exported. None was registered as consigned to Spain.

Mr. Shinwell: As regards the type of aircraft exported, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary stated last week that very few modern types were exported?

Mr. Hudson: That may well be so, but the information the hon. Member desires is not at the Board of Trade. If he wants it he must apply to the Air Ministry.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the question was addressed to the Air Ministry, and was transferred to the Board of Trade?

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman also ascertain which Minister is responsible for giving permission for the export of up-to-date military aircraft to our potential enemies?

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of Order. I put down a question to the Air Ministry and it was transferred to the Board of Trade. Now, when I ask for a reply, the right hon. Gentleman informs me that I should apply to the Air Ministry. Will you give me your guidance, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Member should put it down to both.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the exports of Germany and Italy for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date for which figures are available in his Department were consigned to the United Kingdom; and what proportion of imports into those countries were from the United Kingdom?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The official trade returns of Germany and Italy show that, during the year 1937, exports to the United Kingdom represented 7.3 and 6.1 per cent., respectively, of those countries' total exports of merchandise and silver bullion. The corresponding proportions for imports from the United Kingdom were 5.6 and 3.9 per cent., respectively.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the exports were re-exported?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

STARCH (IMPORTS).

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the increase in the imports of miscellaneous starch and preparations therefrom from 427,000 cwts. in 1936 to 2,391,000 cwts. in 1937; and the sources of this increased importation?

Captain Wallace: The increase referred to is due to larger imports of cassava (or tapioca) in the form of flour or starch, other than the foodstuff tapioca, which rose from 205,000 cwts. in 1936 to 2,245,000 cwts. in 1937. Of these imports, the amount consigned from Java increased from 143,000 cwts. in 1936 to 2,070,000 cwts. in 1937.

CHAINS (IMPORT).

Mr. Pearson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the sizes of chains imported into this country during 1937 from Czechoslovakia; and whether such chains were machine-made, foundry-casted, or forge-welded?

Captain Wallace: I regret that the desired information is not available from the trade returns of the United Kingdom. The Czechoslovak export returns indicate that some 70 per cent. of the chains exported to the United Kingdom in 1937 had links over 6 millimetres thick; the links of the remainder were between 2 and 6 millimetres thick.

SPAIN.

Sir Granville Gibson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the fact that our imports from Spain in 1937 amounted to £8,627,000, while our exports were only £2,423,000, he will make arrangements to allocate part of the large balance of payments in favour of Spain to the liquidation of the debts due to our exporters?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: The balance in favour of Spain becomes very much less than would appear from the figures quoted by my hon. Friend if account is taken of re-exports and of the very considerable deductions from the United Kingdom import figure necessary in respect of freights and other charges. The position, however, is being closely watched.

Sir G. Gibson: In view of the fact that there is a very large balance of trade in favour of Spain with this country, cannot


the Department evolve some scheme whereby assistance might be given to many of our exporters who, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, are very seriously financially embarrassed at this time?

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Might it not help if the Government were to export some munitions of war to the Spanish Government?

LOBSTER INDUSTRY.

Mr. Mathers (for Mr. R. Gibson): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the distress amongst lobster fishermen, especially in the West of Scotland, through the low prices obtained for lobsters, particularly during August, September, and October, owing to glutted markets; what are the quantities and value of lobsters imported into the United Kingdom for each month during the last three years, respectively; and whether he will set up a committee to advise on steps to be taken to regulate the imports and supply of lobsters so as to secure a reasonable price to fishermen and a proper development of the lobster fishing and canning industry, particularly in the West of Scotland?

Captain Wallace: I am informed that the Fishery Board for Scotland have received no representations confirming the statements in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, particulars of imports of fresh lobsters are not separately recorded in the trade returns of the United Kingdom, but I understand they are not considerable. The figures of imports of canned lobsters are published in the monthly accounts relating to trade and navigation. As regards the last part of the question, I understand that the position of the lobster fishermen is a matter that would properly come under the review of the White Fish Commission proposed to be constituted under the provisions of the Sea Fish Industry Bill. There is an import duty of 30 per cent. ad valorem on fresh lobsters and 10 per cent. ad valorem on canned lobsters.

Mr. Mathers: Does the Board of Trade recognise the lobster industry in the West of Scotland as being one which is worth preserving?

Captain Wallace: Every industry is worth preserving.

Mr. Thorne: Will the right hon. and gallant Member pay a visit to Scotts Lobster House in Piccadilly, where he will find that the prices are not getting low?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE (MILITARY TRAINING).

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of instituting a system of general military training solely for purposes of effective national Defence and in order to obviate a professionally-controlled force being used either for purposes of aggression abroad or the establishment of military dictatorship at home?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 24th February in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander).

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN LOANS (DEFAULT).

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Council of Foreign Bondholders have just reported that they endeavoured in 1937, and unsuccessfully, to ascertain from the Brazilian authorities what Brazil could be expected to pay on the external debt upon which Brazil has defaulted five times; and will he, in future, stipulate, before relaxing the embargo on any issue here of a foreign government loan, that an ascertainment of what the borrower can be expected to pay shall be obtained and published before, and not after, the foreign loan has been floated?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I am aware of the references to Brazil made in the recent report of the Council of Foreign Bondholders. In reply to the second part of the question, I would remind my hon. Friend that, in my recent announcement on foreign lending, I made it quite clear that consents would not be given indiscriminately to applications on behalf of foreign Governments, which would continue to be considered on their merits. Naturally, the treatment of British interests in the past is one of the matters which would be considered.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware


that the Anglo-German payments agreement has benefited Anglo-German trade at the expense of British savings subscribed to German post-War nongovernmental loans to rehabilitate Anglo-German trade; and will he arrange for the defaulted German contracts on long-term British investments to be met in cash, and not again in Konversionskasse paper as announced on 28th February, so that the agreement shall operate more fairly for investors instead of mainly for the benefit of acceptance and finance houses?

Sir J. Simon: The acceptance and finance houses are concerned with "Standstill Credits," which have never been affected by the Anglo-German Payments Agreement, but are governed by the Standstill Agreements made between the creditors and the German authorities direct. As regards the holders of non-Reich loans, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to him on 22nd and 23rd February, to which I have nothing to add.

Sir J. Nall: Are the payments still standing still?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR DRAWBACK.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of sugar drawback refunded for each of the years from 1928 to 1937?

Sir J. Simon: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sorensen: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information as to the number and names of the firms to whom this refund has been given; and, if so, would be include it in the statement that he is circulating?

Sir J. Simon: I have before me the answer which it is proposed to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I do not think that either the question or the answer deals with the names. I will, however, make inquiries.

Following is the answer:

The following table shows, for each of the callendar years, 1928 to 1937:

(a) the amounts of drawback paid on sugar, including molasses, glucose and saccharin, and

(b) the amounts paid as allowances in respect of molasses delivered for use as food for stock.





(a)
(b)





£
£


1928
…
…
848,000
74,000


1929
…
…
2,303,000
142,000


1930
…
…
3,398,000
136,000


1931
…
…
1,775,000
69,000


1932
…
…
3,372,000
179,000


1933
…
…
4,033,000
93,000


1934
…
…
4,040,000
108,000


1935
…
…
3,744,000
118,000


1936
…
…
4,227,000
206,000


1937
…
…
3,583,000
313,000

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRMS' DESCRIPTIVE TITLES.

Mr. Parker: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the unjustifiable use of such titles as "Government Contractors" and "Under Royal Patronage" by certain firms, he will have a scheme prepared by which there shall be a list of firms eligible to use such titles, such eligibility to cease after a fixed period after the last contract performed or the last patronage enjoyed, so that firms can be prosecuted who invite trade on the strength of such titles without justification?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The proposal which the hon. Member makes would, of course, require legislative sanction. I agree that there have been a few cases of the unjustifiable use of the descriptive titles to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not think that the practice is so "widespread as to warrant action on the lines suggested.

Mr. Denville: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the growth in the number of companies and societies with titles indicating official connection with the Government or the Empire, whereas in fact no such connection exists, he will consider setting up a committee to investigate the subject and report on the best method of putting an end to this method of deception?

Captain Wallace: Under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1929, no company can be registered by a name which contains the words "Royal" or "Imperial" or, in the opinion of the Registrar, suggests, or is calculated to suggest, the patronage of His Majesty or of any member of the Royal Family or


connection with His Majesty's Government or any Department thereof, unless the Board of Trade consent to such registration. I am making inquiries into the paticular case of which I received notice from my hon. Friend this morning.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD TRADES (PROFITS).

Mr. Parker: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the continued public concern at the cost of distributing foodstuffs, he will instruct the Board of Inland Revenue to prepare a report on the profits on turnover in 1930–31, 1933–34, 1935–36, and 1936–37 made by firms and invididuals in the wholesale and retail food trades, similar to that submitted to the Royal Commission on food prices in 1925?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The time and labour involved in preparing a report of this kind would be considerable, and, as at present advised, I do not think that the expenditure would be justified.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES (CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS).

Mr. Bull: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now make a statement as to the result of the investigations instituted some little time ago into the feasibility of establishing a contributory pensions scheme for workers in the Royal Ordnance Factories?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAST EROSION.

Viscount Elmley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the possibility of promoting legislation with the object of treating damage caused by coast erosion and inadequate sea defences as matters of national concern, in view of the inability of local authorities to deal with these matters?

Captain Wallace: I would refer my Noble Friend to the answer given on 15th February to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson). Certain recommendations

made by the Royal Commission on Coast Erosion were embodied in a Bill submitted to the House of Commons in 1929, but, in the absence of substantial agreement, the Bill was not proceeded with. In default of a very substantial measure of agreement, I regret that there is no prospect of legislation at present.

Viscount Elmley: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend reconsider this matter, especially as regards the type of emergency which occurred in Norfolk recently?

Captain Wallace: I am afraid that this type of emergency is not altogether a question for the President of the Board of Trade.

Sir Percy Harris: Does that mean that the Government are prepared to wait and do nothing, and allow England to be washed away?

Mr. Kirkwood: In the event of the Government putting up adequate defence against the sea encroaching on the land, who would be the owners of the land that is saved? Would it be the landlord class at the back of the House of Commons?

Mr. Holmes: Would the Minister be prepared to differentiate between cases which may be termed ordinary coast erosion and sea flooding, and cases of unexpected emergency which could not have been foreseen by those responsible for the particular area; and would he consider giving special treatment in the latter case?

Captain Wallace: I do not think that the second class of case really comes under the Board of Trade. It all depends on the definition of "foreshore," which is rather a technical definition.

Mr. Roland Robinson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this trouble in Norfolk is likely to recur on or about 17th March, and will he not see that some action is taken before then?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the prospective increase in unemployment benefit, he will consider a pro rata increase in War pensions?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): No, Sir. The fact that the Unemployment Insurance Fund is financially in a position to give contributors an improved return for their contributions has no bearing on the scales of war pensions. The scales now in operation were adopted to meet the high cost of living which prevailed in 1919, and there would be no justification for an increase of these scales at the present time, when the cost of living is much lower.

Mr. Sorensen: Seeing that the Minister of Labour has increased scales because the immediate cost of living is rising, will not the Minister see that in his Department at least as humane administration takes place as in the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I would point out that the purchasing power of a pension, say of 40s. in 1919, had risen to 51s. 10d. in 1928, when stabilisation was effected, and is now 54s. 10d.

Mr. Sorensen: Does that affect the fact that the Ministry of Labour in recent weeks has announced an increase of approximately 1s. a week in the scale paid? Does not that indicate that the Minister of Labour realises the necessity for such an increase?

Mr. Ramsbotham: The figures I have given materially affect the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREST OF DEAN (DEER).

Mr. Thurtle: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether his attention has been called to the fact that two students at the Government school of forestry, Parkend, Forest of Dean, have been fined 24s. each and given extra tasks, consisting of a month's fire duty, for refusing to take part in a deer hunt; and whether he has any statement to make on the matter?

Colonel Ropner: I have been asked to reply. I am aware that in the case of the two students at the school referred to the bonus which may be paid to them at the end of their course will be reduced by 24s., and that they were put on a month's fire picket duty. The reason was that they had refused to obey instructions to turn out as beaters at a deer drive. The killing of deer, rabbits, etc., is in some

places an essential protective forestry operation, and the two students failed to keep their signed agreement to perform any duty allotted to them.

Mr. Thurtle: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this deer hunt took place in the close-season and that, therefore, the duty of taking part in it was even more repugnant to these students than otherwise would have been the case?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Thurtle: On a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was about to rise to answer my supplementary question, and may I not have an answer to it?

Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman rose to answer another question. The hon. Member is giving information, and is not asking a question.

Mr. Thurtle: On a point of Order. I was seeking to establish the fact that there was a real grievance so far as these students were concerned by means of my supplementary question.

Colonel Ropner: However unpleasant this duty may appear to some foresters, the deer in the Forest of Dean do an immense amount of harm to young plantations, and it is necessary to keep their numbers down.

Oral Answers to Questions — BEECH PLANTATION, EAST SUSSEX.

Sir P. Harris: asked the right hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he proposes to plant a belt of trees between the villages of West Dean and Jevington, in East Sussex; whether the chalk soil there is suitable for this purpose; and whether trees have ever been known to grow on the high ground of the East Sussex Downs exposed to wind?

Colonel Ropner: The Forestry Commissioners have already planted, and are continuing to plant, land between West Dean and Jevington in East Sussex. The main crop is to be beech, which grows well on chalk soils. The land rises from a few feet to 350 feet above sea level. There are many examples of beech


plantations which have grown satisfactorily on equally exposed positions on the chalk downs in the south of England.

Sir P. Harris: Will the Forestry Commissioners do their best to protect the amenities and peculiar features of the Downs, which afford pleasure to thousands of people in Sussex?

Colonel Ropner: Yes, Sir, I am sure that they will do that.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can my hon. and gallant Friend say how much of the plantation is in beech?

Colonel Ropner: On the chalk soils of the Downs the final crop in nearly all cases will be of beech.

Captain Heilgers: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in this particular neighbourhood all attempts at planting beech have been a complete failure?

Colonel Ropner: That is not the experience of the Forestry Commission.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is it not the fact that the trees referred to have grown appreciably since they were set?

Oral Answers to Questions — BLACK-LISTED SCHOOLS.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of elementary schools in England and Wales that were condemned by the Board's survey to be replaced; the number that have been replaced by new buildings; and the number that still remain to be dealt with?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Six hundred and seventy-nine schools were originally placed in class A of the "Black List," that is, schools reported as unsuitable for continued recognition and incapable of improvement. Of these, 518 have already been dealt with by closure, replacement or reconstruction, and of the 145 still on the list, plans for the replacement or reconstruction of 29 have been approved by the Board. The future of these schools is intimately bound up with reorganisation, which is the main occupation of the Board and the local education authorities at the present time.

Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman or the Board satisfied with the progress that has been made in the replacement of these schools?

Mr. Lindsay: No, Sir, not entirely. We are considering plans to the value of something like £200,000 a week for reorganisation, and I would like to urge all hon. Members to press their local authorities to finish these schools.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the number of these schools has increased or decreased?

Mr. Lindsay: They are definitely on the decrease.

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Gentleman set a time limit by which these condemned schools must be dealt with?

Mr. Lindsay: I had thought of doing that, but this is so bound up with reorganisation that I think the best thing is to press forward with reorganisation as the quickest method of dealing with this problem.

Mr. Ede: Would it not help both if a time limit were put on, as it would compel the more reluctant authorities to reorganise?

Mr. Lindsay: Well, if it would, I should be glad to do it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURE (PRICES).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether and to what extent the investigation of Government accountants into the cost of primary manufacturers of aircraft extends to an investigation of the costs of sub-contractors who supply the Government contractors?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): Investigations are carried out in cases where the Air Ministry directs the main contractor to sub-let work to a particular sub-contractor and where orders for components are placed with a specialist firm by a number of main contractors. The normal practice in cases of sub-contracting is for competitive tenders to be called for by the main contractor whose responsibility it is to satisfy the Department that the prices paid are fair and reasonable.

Mr. Garro Jones: With reference to the last part of that answer, is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the safeguard of competitive tender has become nugatory on account of the difficulties of production and that many firms are not looking for orders, but trying to avoid them; and that the growing pressure of competitive buying, by Government contractors, against sub-contractors is sending up prices out of all proportion to costs?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: The supplementary question of the hon. Member seems to raise rather a wider question than the actual method which is employed to check whether the sub-contract price is reasonable. I think the method that is employed is reasonable. That is our experience.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is it not the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is relying upon competitive tender by sub-contractors to keep the price down, and that, where sub-contractors are not looking for work, competitive tender is no safeguard, because Government contractors are willing to pay any price for many commodities such as jigs and tools?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: If a sub-contract were put up to competitive tender we should examine, first of all, whether the sub-contract was put on a sufficiently broad basis of competitive tender and whether the lowest price had been accepted. If we were satisfied on these

Area.
Average number of persons in receipt of out-relief in money and kind during
Average weekly cost of out-relief in money and kind during




December, 1931.
December, 1937.
December, 1931.
December, 1937.






£
£


Lancs. Administrative County
…
20,003
34,343
5,728
14,524


Manchester C.B.
…
39,862
30,611
13,042
15,350


Salford C.B.
…
4,746
6,040
1,615
2,759


Liverpool C.B.
…
46,803
49,467
14,928
20,317


Blackburn C.B
…
2,673
2,355
762
783

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet come to any decision as to the principles which are to govern the nature and amount of grants to public

two points for the most part we should be satisfied that the price was a reasonable one, but supposing it was not, we should investigate the case further.

Mr. L. Smith: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the Opposition's talk of slump is finished with now?

Oral Answers to Questions — OUT-RELIEF, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Minister of Health the number of people in receipt of domiciliary relief in the Lancashire county administrative area at 31st December, 1931, and at 31st December, 1937; the cost of such relief; and the same information respecting the county boroughs of Manchester, Salford, Liverpool and Blackburn?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will the Minister kindly see that the Prime Minister is supplied with a copy in order that he may see the growing burden upon local authorities?

Following is the answer:

Statement showing the average number of persons in receipt of out-relief in money and kind in December, 1931, and December, 1937, and the average weekly cost of such relief during those months, in the areas mentioned by the hon. Member.

utility undertakings in regard to air-raid precautions?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Inquiries into the most effective way of


assisting essential public utility undertakings to continue functioning in war time, including consultation with the authorities concerned, are in progress in the case of electricity, gas and railways, and are about to begin in the case of water supply and dock and harbour authorities. As soon as the inquiries are completed it will be possible to indicate the amount of grant available from Exchequer funds and the principles of its distribution.

Sir J. Mellor: In view of the long delay that has already taken place, can my hon. Friend promise that the negotiations with the public utility undertakings will not be protracted, as were the negotiations with the local authorities?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is it not the case that discussions commenced about two years ago, and is it not now about time that some conclusion was arrived at?

Oral Answers to Questions — LITTER (WAR OFFICE LAND, HINDHEAD).

Mr. G. Nicholson: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that much litter is left by picnickers and others upon War Office land on the slopes of Hindhead; and whether he will have this land periodically cleaned up and will take all possible measures to prevent a recurrence of this nuisance?

Sir V. Warrender: I am unable, from the particulars furnished in the question, to identify the land to which my hon. Friend refers. If he will let me have further details I will have the matter investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Fleming: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the "Romford," "Woodford." "Endymion," and "Alcira" were sailing under full or provisional certificates, supplied according to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, at the time they were recently attacked?

Captain Wallace: The "Romford" and the "Woodford" were sailing under provisional certificates of British registry, and the "Endymion" and the "Alcira" under permanent certificates.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister what steps the Government are taking in order to expedite the expansion of the Royal Air Force so as to secure equality with other continental Powers; and, in view of the difficulty of carrying out this policy with British industry on a peace-time basis, whether he now proposes to organise industry for this purpose?

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the very full statement which I made yesterday.

Mr. De la Bère: May I ask the Prime Minister how is it possible to obtain air parity when working under present conditions, and will the right hon. Gentleman not consider setting up a department of supply to deal with the nation-wide aspects of this case. It is impossible to catch up with Continental Powers under present conditions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask what business it is proposed to take in the event of the Motion for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being carried?

The Prime Minister: The Eleven o'Clock Rule is being suspended for Private Business at the request of the Chairman of Ways and Means in order to cover the proceedings in connection with the London Passenger Transport Board Bill which, as the House is aware, has been set down for consideration at 7.30 p.m. this evening. So far as Government business is concerned, conversations have taken place through the usual channels as to the likely progress of Supplementary Estimates to-day. I am informed that the first Estimate relating to Palestine may occupy a considerable time, and we are suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule as a precautionary measure to make certain that we obtain this Estimate tonight. The remaining Supplementary Estimates on the Paper will be postponed until to-morrow and taken after those which relate to the Foreign Office. I ought to remind the House that we must dispose of outstanding Supplementary Estimates at to-morrow's sitting.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business and on any Private Business set


down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of

the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)." —[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 265; Noes, 118.

Division No. 123.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Ellis, Sir G.
McKie, J. H.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Elmley, Viscount
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Emery, J. F.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Macquisten, F. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Magnay, T.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Errington, E.
Maitland, A.


Assheton, R.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Everard, W. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Findlay, Sir E.
Marsden, Commander A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Fleming, E. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Bernays, R. H.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Blair, Sir R.
Gledhill, G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bossom, A. C.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Boulton, W. W.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.


Brass, Sir W.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Moreing, A. G.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Grimston, R. V.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Nall, Sir J.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Bull, B. B.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hannah, I. G.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Burghley, Lord
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Harbord, A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Butcher, H. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Patrick, C. M.


Carver, Major W. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Peat, C. U.


Cary, R. A.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Pilkington, R.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hepworth, J.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Porritt, R. W.


Channon, H.
Higgs, W. F.
Procter, Major H. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Radford, E. A.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ramsbotham, H.


Christie, J. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Holmes, J. S.
Rankin, Sir R.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hulbert, N. J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hunter, T.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Keeling, E. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Critchley, A.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Rowlands, G.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cross, R. H.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Crossley, A. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Salmon, Sir I.


Davidson, Viscountess
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)



Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Leech, Sir J. W.
Salt, E. W.


De Chair, S. S.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Samuel, M. R. A.



Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


De La Bère, R.
Levy, T.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Liddall, W. S.
Sandys, E. D.


Denville, Alfred
Lindsay, K. M.
Savery, Sir Servington


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lipson, D. L.
Scott, Lord William


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lloyd, G. W.
Simmonds, O. E.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Duggan, H. J.
Loftus, P. C.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Dunglass, Lord
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Eastwood, J. F.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Eckersley, P. T.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerset, T.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)




Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Turton, R. H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wakefield, W. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Wise, A. R.


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Withers, Sir J. J.


Sutcliffe, H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Tasker, Sir R. I.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Tate, Mavis C.
Warrender, Sir V.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Waterhouse, Captain C.
Wragg, H.


Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Wayland, Sir W. A.



Tree, A. R. L. F.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Mr. Munro and Mr. Furness.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hardie, Agnes
Pearson, A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hayday, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Banfield, J. W.
Hicks, E. G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Batey, J.
Hollins, A.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Bellenger, F. J.
Hopkin, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
John, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cooks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Leach, W.
Stokes, R. R.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leonard, W.
Thorne, W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Day, H.
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Dobbie, W.
Lunn, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Watson, W. McL.


Gardner, B. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Mander, G. le M.
Westwood, J.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Carn'v'n)
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Mathers, G.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Maxton, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Milner, Major J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Montague, F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Owen, Major G.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 73.]

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

Report from the Joint Committee, in respect of the Trade Marks Bill [Lords] (pending in the Lords), with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 74.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Sir Adrian Baillie, Sir Alfred Beit, Mr. Bellenger, Mr. Channon, Mr. Christie, Mr. Cove, Mr. Crossley, Mr. Day, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Leonard, and Mr. Pickthorn; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Ralph Beaumont, Mr. Beechman, Captain Cazalet, Sir Francis Fremantle, Mr. Kirby, Mr. Selley, Mr. Silkin, Mr. Silverman, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Watson, and Major Whiteley.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty-five Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill): Mr. Ammon, the Attorney-General, Mr. Bernays, Mr. Bevan, Sir Edward Campbell, Mr. Croom-Johnson, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. Grimston, Miss Horsbrugh, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Johnston, Major Owen, the Solicitor-General, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Spens, Mr. Stephen, Mr. Henry Strauss, Sir John Train, Mr. Turton, Mr. Wedderburn, Sir Kingsley Wood, and Mr. Young.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Sir Robert Gower and Mr. Lovat-Fraser; and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte and Sir Patrick Hannon.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Children and Young Persons Act (1933) (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Broad, Mr. Cluse, Mr. Clement Davies, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Lyons, Sir John Mellor, Mr. Palmer, the Solicitor-General and Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Bill): the Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Clarry, Sir Smedley Crooke, Mr. Clement Davies, Mr. Doland, Mr. Higgs, Mr. Hills, Mr. Hutchinson, Sir Henry Haydn Jones, Mr. MacLaren, Mr. Pearson, Sir Frank Sanderson, Mr. Ellis Smith, the Solicitor-General and Mr. Henry Strauss.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Miss Horsbrugh, Mr. Maitland, Mr. Petherick, and Mr. Shinwell; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Elliston, Mr. George Hall, Lord William Scott, and Colonel Sinclair.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing

Committee C (in respect of the Architects Registration Bill): Mr. R. Acland, Lord Balniel, Mr. Bossom, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Grant-Ferris, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Mr. McEntee, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Mr. Orr-Ewing, Mr. Palmer, Sir Robert Tasker, Sir John Withers, and Mr. Viant.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1937.

CLASS II.

COLONIAL AND MIDDLE EASTERN SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants-in-Aid.

3.58 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): It is customary on these occasions for the Minister responsible for bringing before the Committee a Supplementary Estimate to explain how it is that the original Estimate, which was approved by Parliament last summer, has been exceeded. Although the net result of unexpected windfalls and under-spending under various heads is such that the net amount is only £10, the Committee will see that the Supplementary Estimate does involve variations under a number of headings. In accordance with the practice of Parliament, it is my duty to explain why the Estimate has been exceeded under some of the heads. Taking them in the order in which they appear on the Paper, the first is Somaliland, but I think it will serve the convenience of the Committee if I deal with the Votes for Somaliland and Kenya together, since they are for the same object at the same time, namely, the maintenance of Abyssinian refugees.
Ever since the troubles in Ethiopia, there have been successive influxes into neighbouring territories under British control of refugees from different Abyssinian tribes, and obviously, owing to the continued unsettlement in that country, it is quite impossible to say what will be their ultimate destiny. Though we may have more or less, still more is it quite impossible to forecast

what the charge will be. Into Somaliland last April, after the Estimates had been presented, there was a further influx of hundreds of Abyssinian refugees, who had to be accommodated in camps and provided with food, medical attention and humanitarian care. In different parts of the long Kenya-Abyssinia frontier there have been infiltrations which could not be foreseen. More particularly because the old relations between the Abyssinian tribes and the Kenya tribes on our frontier have not been too happy in the past, due to mutual raiding, it has been necessary to segregate the refugees and to make camps for them. We are now maintaining at our expense in different parts of Kenya something like 6,000 men, women and children, who have come over the Abyssinian frontier into the Northern territories of Kenya. We have to bear the charge for this humanitarian work.
The next item relates to British Guiana, and it is to clear up an accounting matter in connection with the League of Nations Commission. That Commission carried out an investigation in British Guiana in order to ascertain whether anywhere in that Colony it would be possible to find a home for the Assyrians. The League paid the bulk of the cost, but there was certain local expenditure in connection with the inquiry and the League undertook to pay only a part of it. It is therefore only right and proper that this incidental expense should fall upon the Imperial Government. Guiana is a country, the size of England, with a population of about 300,000, and naturally it was thought, on looking at the map, that if a place for the possible settlement of the Assyrians could be found the matter was worth investigating. But we could not take the responsibility alone, and we asked the League to appoint an independent body to see whether there was suitable land.
They came to the conclusion that both on scientific and economic grounds such settlement was quite impossible. The Assyrians are hillmen, accustomed to live in a dry upland climate, and are habituated to a particular form of agriculture and life, and an attempt to settle them in one of the wettest and most tropical ranges of forest close to the Equator is out of the question. A full survey and investiga-


tion were made in the dense tropical forests. The bulk of the existing small population of the Colony is not in British Guiana, as one would expect, but on the edge of it. The League Commission conclusively proved that the idea of settling human beings now or in the near future in the hinterland of British Guiana, unless they were a purely forest people habituated to damp tropical life, was out of the question.
The next item relates to British Honduras. It is a sum of £8,000, the first instalment of a project for the improvement and development of that little Colony, our only Colony on the mainland of Central America. It has only 55,000 inhabitants, of whom the bulk are aboriginal Indians. In 1907 the then Liberal Government gave a grant to start the first railway in the Colony. That railway failed in its purpose and until to-day it has been run at a loss. We, therefore, had an expert inquiry undertaken. It came to the conclusion that in 1907 there had been every reason to attempt development and the opening up of the interior by constructing a railway; but the railway aged fast, it never could pay, and the only thing to do was to pull it up and build in its place a proper road suitable for motor traffic. It was a difficult business building a road in the Colony, which has very slender resources and a small revenue. Therefore we proposed that there should be a loan and that as interest and sinking fund could not be paid in the first few years we should undertake certain additional charges. This road will serve to bring down to the coast the bananas and the chicle, the raw material for chewing-gum. On these exports the economic life of the Colony is based.
The next item relates to Boundary Commissions. It has been very difficult to forecast in each year what expenditure will be incurred. There was an international convention ratified in 1929 between Brazil and this country, regarding the rectification of the southern frontier of British Guiana and the northern frontier of Brazil. The actual work of marking that frontier has been going on for some time. It has been a much more difficult and expensive job than was anticipated, and has been carried out in very difficult, uninhabited country. Major expenditure has increased this year unexpectedly, because we have had a big team of sur-

veyors and assistants at work trying to get the job completed as quickly as possible. I hope that we shall soon reach the end of the business, because once we have ratified an international treaty involving the delimitation and marking of a boundary the erection of the necessary boundary marks and pylons should be done for all time.
Now I come to Aden. The Committee will remember that until 1st April last the Government of India, or more correctly the Government of Bombay, was responsible for administration in Aden, and that on 1st April Aden became a colony and protectorate under the Colonial Office as a result of the passing of the Government of India Act. It had then a new Governor for the first time. It was impossible, when the Estimate was originally framed, to say exactly how much the cost of this change would be. This is a Vote for individual officers' accommodation, such as bungalows, and for the cost of establishing under the Colonial Office the civil administration in Aden and the Protectorate. I do not think anything significant arises on the Vote.
We now come to the three Palestine Votes. I shall briefly explain the Estimates and then hear what the Committee wish to say on the subject before I reply in general terms. The first Vote is for troops and troops only. It represents the cost of the extra military garrison in Palestine. When the original Estimate was made in the Spring of last year it was quite impossible to foretell what the situation would be in Palestine. The Royal Commission was still in the country and no one had any idea what its recommendations would be. Undoubtedly when the Commission was there it looked as if the disturbances of 1936 would not be repeated. The country was in a very much better state and it seemed that after the general strike it was to settle down. Indeed that state of affairs did to a certain extent exist until last Autumn. It was not until last Autumn, after the League Council had met and the Debates had taken place in this House, that we had the great recrudescence of trouble, which started with the murder of Mr. Andrews, a very remarkable and able District Commissioner. From that day to this there has been the sad sequence of events which have necessitated the maintenance and the use of large numbers of British troops in that


country; and this is the Vote for the cost of the troops.

Mr. Morgan Jones: How many troops are there?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The normal garrison in Palestine consists of two battalions of infantry. The reinforcements consist of four additional battalions, and, in addition to those, there are a field company of Royal Engineers, a railway company of Royal Engineers, detachments of the Royal Corps of Signals, the Army Ordnance Corps and the like, two squadrons of the Royal Air Force, and an armoured car company. There is, in fact, the equivalent—without artillery, which would be quite valueless for this purpose—of two brigades operating in different parts of that very disturbed country.
The next Supplementary Estimate which I wish to explain concerns a new service, namely, the hydrographic survey. This survey is being pushed on with all possible speed. It arises out of the report of the Royal Commission, and it is essential to the effective working of the new Technical Commission about which I shall have a word to say in a moment. It is obvious that we cannot present either to this House, as we are pledged to do by the Resolution of last July, or to the League of Nations, a full picture of the possibilities of partition in Palestine unless we can provide all the data necessary for forming judgments regarding the possibilities of further irrigation. By that I mean data concerning further sources of water, either from wells or from the diversion of wadis by canals and the like, which will give some idea of the economic possibilities both in Transjordania and Palestine of the settlement of people, whether Arabs or Jews, as cultivators.
The population of Palestine has been growing rapidly since our occupation—the Jewish population by immigration and by natural increase, and the Arab population by a remarkable natural increase, and to some extent as the result of improved health services and the like. There being no mineral wealth with the exception of Dead Sea salts, the real wealth of the country must necessarily be in its agriculture, and the possibility of any successful development of that country still lies in agriculture.

Hitherto the main efforts of Jewish settlers and Arabs for economic improvement have been centred near the coast and in the plains where it is known that water exists underneath the soil. The great increase of Arab and Jewish citrus groves round Jaffa and the Vale of Sharon has been a remarkable feature of the economic development of Palestine. Much has been said about the possibilities of the Jordan Valley or what is called the Negeb, the semi-desert low rainfall area between the Egyptian frontier and the Gulf of Akaba, and also of certain valleys in Transjordania. Before the Technical Commission can pronounce on these questions, it is essential to have further data regarding the possibilities, because there is a great conflict of evidence. That is why we have pushed forward the scientific investigations which have now been going on for the last few months, and this Vote is for that purpose.

Mr. Denman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that investigation will be completed?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is difficult to say. The bores are going down and the wells are being sunk at this moment. Surveys are going on, but, of course, it is very difficult to reach finality. Certain key points are now being investigated, and it is all-important that we should get as early as possible data regarding these areas.

Mr. Lloyd George: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds to the next matter, would he mind telling us whether any examination is now being conducted into the strategic possibilities of the frontiers which are suggested? As he knows perfectly well, they are regarded as indefensible. Is there any military commission inquiring into that matter?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There is no item in the Supplementary Estimate in regard to that matter, and it would, I presume, be out of order to discuss it. That is a question for the General Staff.

Mr. Maxton: Is there any Supplementary Estimate for that matter?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir.

Mr. Maxton: How is that?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is obviously a matter for the General Staff experts. It


is for them to advise the Government on strategic matters. It is ultimately a matter for the Chiefs of Staff as advised by the staff experts. I do not know whether it is irregular to say so or not, but, as a matter of fact, they have already been asked to provide data in that respect.

Mr. de Rothschild: Have the Technical Commission anything to do with that?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Technical Commission are not military experts, and will not be responsible for saying anything about strategy, but they will obtain from military experts opinions on anything of that kind which arises. As regards the cost of the commission, this Supplementary Estimate was submitted to the Treasury in January. It now turns out to be unnecessary, because I do not think any of this money will be required in this financial year. The arrangement was that we should pay the cost of the commission's passages and subsistence allowances, but that the Palestine revenues should bear the cost of office accommodation and expenses while they were in Palestine. This £500 was estimated on the assumption that they would have sailed before the end of this financial year.
I have to explain why it is that I have now to come forward to ask for money which will probably not be spent in this financial year because the Commission are not now going until next month. I had hoped that they would be able to start in March, but, as a matter of fact, not only hydrographie data but other data which are being prepared for them are not yet ready. Also I had to consult the personal convenience both of the members of the Commission and of the new High Commissioner. I thought that to send out these people to make investigations in Palestine on complex terms of reference, almost at the same time as a new High Commissioner, who had never been there before, was taking over, was rather hard on the High Commissioner. I thought it all-important that he should have, at any rate, a few weeks before the Commission arrived. Obviously, they would want to turn to him from time to time for assistance, and would put up requests for information. It also happened that the chairman of the Commission, who has had a long and dis-

tinguished service, ended up only at the end of last year as No. 2 to Sir John Anderson in the Governorship of Bengal, and after a long period in Bengal he really deserved a little leave which he is now having. For that reason the Commission put off their departure.
I do not think at this stage it is necessary to explain in detail the nature of the Estimates. I do not know what points will be raised on them, and I would prefer to reply to such questions as may be put to me later. As I have explained, the hydrographic survey and the expenses of the Technical Commission are new services. The remaining Estimates are supplementaries and I have given the reasons why it was impossible to estimate what the expenditure would be under these heads thus involving the necessity for these Supplementary Estimates towards the end of the financial year.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £5.
I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman in a detailed examination of the various sections of this Vote outside that relating to Palestine, except to say that I was particularly interested in his reference to British Honduras. Requests have been repeatedly made for some expenditure in the direction which he indicated, and I believe that those who are interested in the devlopment of British Honduras will be pleased by the provision made in this Vote. I listened with great care to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say with regard to the items which he has laid before the Committee relating to expenditure in Palestine. He will forgive me if I say bluntly to him that, for the life of me, I cannot discover whether the Government have any policy at all to announce to this Committee. What are all these soldiers for? Surely you do not send soldiers to Palestine for the love of the thing? They must be there for a purpose, and the question that arises is whether we are justified in allowing the Government to provide these vast sums for armed forces, if the Committee has reason to believe that an alteration in the policy of the Government would make those forces largely unnecessary. So I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should take it for granted that all he had to do was to commend to the Committee the expenditure of so many


thousand pounds on sending soldiers to Palestine without saying a single word as to the reason for doing so or what the Government propose to do to deal with the situation which has given rise to the necessity for sending those soldiers to Palestine. I really must say again that the right hon. Gentleman is treating the Committee a little inadequately, not to use too harsh a term. Last July he gave to the House a White Paper—

Colonel Clifton Brown: On a point of Order. Is this Debate to cover the whole policy of the Government in regard to Palestine?

The Chairman: I have been listening very intently to the hon. Gentleman, and the subjects he is raising are subjects which I could not have allowed the Secretary of State to deal with at length in reply. This is merely a Vote for an increase in the number of troops in Palestine. The discussion on the purpose of the troops generally and the administration generally will have to come on the main Estimate.

Mr. Morgan Jones: May I put a point of Order to you, Sir Dennis? You suggest, quite rightly, that we are asked this afternoon to agree to an extra amount of money to be spent to meet the charge incurred by sending an extra number of troops. Am I not entitled to ask for an explanation why the troops are necessary?

The Chairman: Yes, if the answer is a short one. I cannot allow it to develop into a Debate on general policy.

Mr. Jones: I have not heard from the Minister the reason why these extra soldiers are asked for.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I gave it. I said that when the original Estimate for troops was framed, we were justified in believing that the result of our policy would be a better position in Palestine. Unfortunately, however, last autumn there was a great recrudescence of violence in that country necessitating increased expenditure.

Mr. Lloyd George: It is rather important that we should have a definite Ruling as to the limits beyond which we must not travel in this Debate and the

extent to which we are allowed to investigate and explore the position. I have a White Paper in my hand issued on 23rd December, 1937, and this is the first opportunity we have had of discussing it. It was not issued on any particular Estimate, but it deals with what is happening in Palestine. I should like to know to what parts of this document we shall be entitled to refer. Although it has been issued for two or three months, this is the first opportunity presented to Parliament to find out what has happened and what the White Paper really means. There has been considerable delay, and the first question is whether we are entitled to ask, to begin with, the reason for the delay in procedure. Otherwise, I really do not know what we can discuss. Here is an item of £400,000 for troops sent to preserve order in Palestine. The disturbances are entirely due to policy, and it is rather hard on the House of Commons that it should be asked to vote a large sum of money for additional troops—for more than double the troops that were there—without being entitled to investigate the policy which has forced the Government to send them there.

The Chairman: I gave careful attention to this matter before we met this afternoon, because this is not a mere trifling increase. The right hon. Gentleman asked me especially with regard to the White Paper on policy in Palestine, and the title at the head of that Paper really gives the key to the situation. Quite clearly this White Paper as one on Government policy in Palestine is not one to be discussed on a Supplementary Estimate. The occasion for discussing it is on the next main Vote. The Vote to-day is for an increase, not for sending out troops for the first time, but for an increase in number of the forces already out there. It is not for sending out troops for the first time. It is merely an increase. The right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity is no doubt beyond mine, but I am bound to confess I cannot see that there will be very much opportunity for long or wide debate on this Estimate. The discussion must be confined simply and solely to the increase of troops and the alteration in certain conditions out there causing such increase, but not to the existence of those conditions which caused the first troops to be sent there.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The increase is not due to new battalions being sent out. When the original Estimate was framed in January, 1937, it was contemplated that during the year the garrison in Palestine would be reduced. As a matter of fact, however, the garrison which was there in 1936 has had to be maintained and the battalions have had to be kept up to strength. There have been no new units. Battalions have been withdrawn and replaced by others, but there has been no total increase in the number of troops actually in Palestine. The expectation that the garrison would be reduced has not been realised.

Mr. Morgan Jones: May I put two points? The first is that we are surely entitled to argue that the troops are in Palestine because of a failure of policy. The second point is that we are not only discussing troops, but we are discussing Items H.5 and 6. Item H.6 refers to the Palestine Technical Commission, and it has a most direct reference to this White Paper because it is the paper, as I conceive it, which lays down the terms of reference for the Commission. I submit, therefore, that we cannot very well discuss this item unless we are entitled to discuss the terms of reference under which the Commission is to operate.

The Chairman: I was not thinking when I answered before of the additional item with regard to the Technical Commission. So far as that is dealt with in the White Paper, no doubt it will be in order. As the Secretary of State himself told us, it is in the nature of a new sub-service. With regard to the original question which the hon. Gentleman put to me, I must adhere to my decision that the whole question of the use of troops in Palestine and the necessity for their being in Palestine can be discussed only on the main Estimate. The increase although it be a substantial increase, which is necessary for the maintenance of troops in Palestine, is not a sufficient reason for going into the question of the policy which necessitates the presence of troops.

Mr. Crossley: May I ask whether all the matters dealt with in paragraph 6 of the White Paper from sub-paragraph (a) to sub-paragraph (j), including practically everything in the administration services in Palestine, are in order?

The Chairman: I am afraid I have not re-read those particular paragraphs, and from the hon. Member's description of them I cannot say whether they can be discussed. So far as the Commission is concerned, that is in the nature of a new sub-service, and can be discussed fully.

Mr. Hopkin: Will it be in order to discuss the partition policy of the Government to-day?

The Chairman: Certainly not.

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: Paragraph 5 of the White Paper refers to the practical possibility of a scheme of partition. Are we entitled to discuss partition in relation to the White Paper?

The Chairman: Certainly not on this Estimate.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: Am I right in inferring that we shall not be in order in discussing the volume of migration into Palestine?

The Chairman: That is so.

Mr. Denman: With regard to the Technical Commission and the object of their work, this is the first time the Committee of Supply has had the question of partition before it. If we do not want to spend £500 on this Commission and do not want a Technical Commission sent at all, surely it necessarily involves discussion on the merits of partition?

The Chairman: I do not see at the moment that this Commission has to deal with partition at all, although to some extent their work will be supplementary to it and may have to be considered by them.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I understand that the Ruling is that it will be out of order to discuss the principle of partition, but that we shall be in order under Vote H.6 in discussing the terms of reference set out in the White Paper. Those terms of reference include the recommendation of the Royal Commission as to the partition, the requirements which the boundaries should fulfil, and the economic and financial questions involved in partition. I presume we shall be in order in discussing those questions.

The Chairman: The right hon. Baronet may, perhaps, try to do that later on, but there are obvious limitations which occur


to my mind in reading these words. If he will read them, he will see that what the Commission have to do with regard to partition is very limited. They have to take into account certain things which are beyond their powers to deal with.

Major Procter: If part of this money is to be spent in the production of water, surely it is right to assume that water is for the use of people going into Palestine—

The Chairman: I am afraid that on that reasoning there would be no end to the subjects which one could drag in—even the position in Spain—but I am in the position of having to enforce the customs and Rules of the House, and in regard to Supplementary Estimates they are very strict, and always confine Debates within much narrower limits than enthusiastic Members who are interested in matters to which they relate—of that I am quite aware.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Are we to be allowed to dicuss the policy which necessitated these extra troops in Palestine?

The Chairman: No.

Colonel Wedgwood: Are we entitled to discuss the imaginary policy which has necessitated an expenditure which was greater than had been previously expected?

Mr. Denman: I should like to point out what has been described as being the function of this Technical Commission:
To consider in detail the practical policies of a scheme of partition.
I hope I can assume that as long as we confine ourselves to questions which come within that description we shall be in order.

The Chairman: I very much think the hon. Member will not be in order, but we shall see at the time. I have given my ruling as clearly as I can, and it is scarcely helpful for Members of the Committee to put hypothetical points to me.

Colonel Wedgwood: Before the discussion opens—or, shall I say, closes?—may I point out that this Committee has certain rights? I have been well acquainted with those rights for 32 years, and among those rights is that the Chair shall allow discussion on those subjects which arise directly out of the money which is being

voted. In spite of any communications between yourself, Sir Dennis, and the Treasury Bench, it is for the Chair to decide. We have certain rights. We have the right—

The Chairman: Order. I must interrupt the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, because he has made a reference which, if he will forgive my saying it, I rather resent. It was his reference to communications with the Front Bench. Except that the right hon. Gentleman came to my assistance to point out something—

Colonel Wedgwood: That is what I was referring to—

The Chairman: —my communications with the Front Bench have been confined to telling them what I propose to do and the reasons for it, and what I regarded as being out of order.

Colonel Wedgwood: If I said anything to offend you, Sir Dennis, I withdraw it at once. I was referring to the momentary conversation between the Secretary of State and yourself, not, of course, to any previous conversations. But I do put it to you that this Committee has certain rights. It has the right of inquiry into the reasons for the expenditure of this large extra sum on troops in Palestine above what was anticipated when we voted the original sum. When we granted the original Vote we supposed that after the Peel Commission Report had been received and acted upon things would get quiet in Palestine, and that this extra money would not be wanted. Now it has been found to be wanted, and I do think that we are entitled to call attention to what the Government have done since the acceptance of the Peel Report, and since that money was voted, which has caused the extra expenditure.

The Chairman: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly right in that. In the exercise of his ingenuity he may be able to make a brief speech, but I have an idea that the temptation may come to him to go a little bit beyond what I should hold to be in order. As long as he confines himself simply and solely to the reasons for there having to be an increase, he will be in order.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I will do my very best to keep clearly in mind the Rulings


which you have given, Sir Dennis, though they will involve, I am afraid, some readjustments of what I had intended to say, but I still hope I shall say something relevant to the Vote before us. As I understand it, we are entitled to discuss in relation to Section H.6 the terms of reference under which the Palestine Technical Commission has been set up. I invite the Committee to look at page 2 of the White Paper, where they will find it stated that
it is necessary to emphasise certain implications of the acceptance in principle by the Government of the recommendations contained in Part III of the Report of the Royal Commission and to dispel, if possible, the uncertainty which appears to exist in some quarters with regard to the course of action which His Majesty's Government have in view.
Clearly one of the functions of the Commission is to assist the public at large, and this House, too, in resolving some of the doubts and difficulties which have arisen from the Government's policy. I am basing this observation upon what fell from the Secretary of State himself at the Permanent Mandates Commission last August when, in reply to the Chairman of the Commission, he said that at the present moment two things remained beyond dispute, first, that the Balfour Declaration is still binding upon the Government, and, second, that the Mandate is still in being. If that be true, what is the case for sending this Commission to Palestine at all? I think I am entitled to argue that point. It is important to dispel doubts and difficulties which may be in the minds of people who study this problem. I would suggest that, in point of fact, the very terms of reference of the Commission make it impossible to dispel doubts but, on the contrary, increase doubts. I must recall to the Committee where the House of Commons stands in this matter. When we discussed it in July last the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, spoke to a Motion which invited the House to give a general approval to the recommendations of the Peel Report—I do not say particular, but general approval. The House, after a very close examination of the arguments addressed to it, specifically and with some determination withheld either approval or disapproval of the recommendations.

Mr. Crossley: We were never given a chance to vote on it.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Will the hon. Member read the terms of the Motion?

Mr. Morgan Jones: I will do so with pleasure. The more it is read the better I shall like it. It is quoted on page 5 of the White Paper:
The House of Commons, on the 21st July, 1937, passed a Resolution to the following effect: 'That the proposals contained in Command Paper No. 5531 relating to Palestine should be brought before the League of Nations with a view to enabling His Majesty's Government, after adequate inquiry, to present to Parliament a definite scheme taking into full account all the recommendations of the Command Paper.'
Therefore, I am strictly within the truth when I say that the House neither approved nor disapproved of the Commission's report. What they did say to the Government—it was said specifically across the Floor of the House—was that if the Government desired to go to Geneva and to say that the Government qua Government wished to endorse the Peel Commission recommendations that was for them to decide, but that the House reserved to itself freedom in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman went to Geneva, and the late Foreign Secretary went also. One of them addressed the Permanent Mandates Commission and the other the League Council, and at one or, other of those gatherings the announcement was made that a Technical Commission was to be sent to Palestine, and this, I take it, is the Technical Commission.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Government take this Resolution of the House of Commons as meaning that before they would pronounce on the question of partition, aye or no, and before they debated the question of partition again, they wished to have another inquiry, and this Technical Commission is the inquiry which Parliament asked for to produce a definite scheme. We put that point at Geneva, and it was accepted at Geneva.

Mr. Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled, if he chooses, to make that deduction, but, in point of fact, the House never indicated any preference for a new Commission to be sent to the spot.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It was a request from all parts of the House.

Mr. Jones: No, the words were "after full inquiry," and I am not sure that anyone would imply that there should be a special commission such as is now being


sent. That is not the inquiry which people had in their minds. We do not need more knowledge on Palestine. Palestine has been examined, re-examined and re-reexamined over and over again. It is not information we wanted but an inquiry as to the implications of the Peel Commission's report, because the report was presented to the House rather hurriedly. It was in the hands of the Government for about a fortnight. They quickly came to a decision and the House was, if I may use a common expression, rather rushed into the decision. What the House meant was that there should be further examination into the facts pro and con partition as suggested by the Peel Commission. Then the Commission was announced, about August last, and now we are asked to provide money in this Supplementary Estimate for this further expenditure. But I understand that, after all, none of this money is to be spent this year.
I am speaking now as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and it seems rather odd that the Government should be asking for money in a Supplementary Estimate when they do not propose to spend it. It is a bad practice. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that Supplementary Estimates are asked for only if there is a definite assurance that the money is to be spent, but we are now told specifically that it is not to be spent. I will not prejudge or anticipate what the Public Accounts Committee may say a year and a half hence. That Commission was announced in August, and now we are in the month of March, about eight months later, and not one step nearer to seeing this inquiry put on foot. We are told that they may, or will, go next month. I accept the word "will." They will go next month. That is to say, the Government have either spent or wasted nine months in proceeding with an inquiry which they suggest is inevitable in order to arrive at conclusions. I really must tell them quite frankly that I do not understand this dilatoriness in arriving at a firm decision upon this matter. Let me remind the Committee what this procrastination really means. Look at the steps to which we are being committed before there is anything like finality as to the Government's policy in this matter. Several of them are cited in the White Paper towards the end.
But look at the circumstances. First we are appointing a Technical Commission, and here it is to-day. This Commission is to demarcate the tripartite partition and examine the financial and economic conditions involved in partition. That will take some time. Secondly, when they have done their job, the Government will have to consider the recommendations of the Commission, and if the Government accept the recommendations of the Commission, it will have to go again to the Council of the League of Nations. Then you come to the third step. The League enters into the discussion, and will have to examine with the same care as the Government have done the recommendations of the Technical Commission. Thus the League's approval will be asked for and accepted or rejected to any new system of government that the Technical Commission may suggest. Where are we getting to? In July, 1937, we started by the House of Commons refusing to bind itself one way or the other in the inquiry, but the Government itself takes nine months before it sends this Commission to Palestine. Then there are various steps following on that, and then we come to the fifth step. When the League has given its approval, if it does give its approval, to a new system of government to be set up in the areas concerned, the two parties, Jews and Arabs, I presume, will have to agree, and the Government will have to open up negotiations with Jews and Arabs for the delineation of the respective independent States. Then there is the possible new establishment of independent States, of a new administration of the Jewish and Arab areas under separate mandates or a system of cantonisation. On top of that, the latter stage, when we finally reach it, is the establishment of the independent States.
I must ask the Government what is going to happen in the country while all this discussion, examination and reexamination are taking place? No one can deny that it will take up, perhaps, two or three or more years. We come now to the first element in the discussion. Already in this interregnum we are asked to provide an extra sum of money for extra troops. Now this is caused, of course, by a certain amount of disturbance, rowdyism, violence and even murder. Shall we turn for a minute to the previous point I was making? This


Commission, we were told a minute ago, is not going to be assisted in so far as its own personnel is concerned by anybody with knowledge of strategy, or of the difficulties of defence that might arise in connection with the delineation of boundaries which must obviously be discussed.
I cannot understand how a Commision of this sort can do its job unless it has very particular regard to the defensibility of these various countries. One of the arguments we had, among others, last July was that the proposal for sending a Commission should be supported because there are areas which could not be defended, do what you would. But what help is this Commission to have? As far as I know, there are three members being sent, quite distinguished gentlemen. I know one of them, a very excellent gentleman. But, so far as I know, not one of them possesses any military knowledge or technical knowledge on questions of defence at all, and, therefore, unless they are assisted by that type of person, their work will lack definiteness. There is no provision except, I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say, the chief or the High Command, here or there.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The home staff organism.

Mr. Jones: Here or there?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Here and there.

Mr. Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman really contemplate that these next three or four years are going to be years not characterised by any uneasiness at all? Does he think the people will be content for all this time to wait for some decision of some sort given by some body? Clearly he is riding, it seems to me, for the most perilous disaster. You cannot expect people in this situation to go on year by year in a state of high tension as they are now with, perhaps, feelings exacerbated on both sides. Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that you must take some sort of decision if only to remove these causes of dispute and disunion between the two races?
I cannot now discuss that as fully as I would like, but let me carry the point a little further. The right hon. Gentleman, I thought, indicated—I hope I did not misunderstand him—that there is a

trial boring being taken not only in Palestine in the part we are discussing now, but that actually soundings are being taken and borings made in the Negeb. I am very glad indeed to hear that, because I am one of those who take the view—let me state it quite bluntly—that you are not going to do much good by going back upon the Mandate question. That is my own view. I do not see that you will get internal order any better by tripartite division than by holding to the Mandate as it is. But that is not the argument now. If there is to be partition I hope the Commission will be absolutely free to make a determination in relation to this area which we call the Negeb. If there is to be increased immigration at a future time—this is the only point I shall make on immigration—I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what is going to happen at the end of this month, because it was intended that they were to limit it until the end of March. It will remove a lot of feeling, apprehension and anxiety if it can be stated with the Chairman's permission.
If partition is to take place, then, it seems to me that this Commission will be performing a very valuable service indeed if they examine with perhaps special particularity the possibilities of this Negeb area. That is, as hon. Gentlemen know, a sort of triangle, with one point at the Gulf of Akaba, another point at the Dead Sea, and another point at the Mediterranean. This triangular portion if taken over for settlement by Jewish people would involve no difficulty or violence to anybody. I understand you would not find more than perhaps 1,000, at the very most 5,000, Bedouins living in the whole place—and 5,000 is, I believe, a grotesque exaggeration. But supposing we take 5,000 in an area that we know from records has at one time in its history probably found place for certainly 100,000 people in days of earlier occupation. If this Commission would examine this very carefully, and if their recommendations were favourable, it might perhaps be useful by way of providing a compensation for the outrage which I consider partition involves.
I think I have nearly covered the whole of the points which I am entitled to put, though not all the points that could be put by any means, and I will only say that for my part I deplore very much that it has not been possible for us to


examine more fully the conditions which seem to me to give rise to this necessity. I may perhaps be allowed to make this observation. I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman in set terms explicitly reassured—I believe it is in the White Paper quoted—he reassured the Mandates Commission that these two points, namely the Boundary Commission and the Mandate, still remain until there is a change binding upon the Government. I can only express the hope that so long as these two facts remain binding upon the Government the administration will so conduct iself as to make it possible for that Mandate to be more easily worked at any rate in future than it has been in the recent two or three years.
I am not at all sure that we are not being asked to send extra troops to Palestine largely because of the failure of the administration itself to be loyal to the Mandate as originally adumbrated and conceived in the Balfour Declaration. I am not speaking without my book when I say—and if my proposition is true I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with it—that here the question of what policy is to be applied in Palestine does not belong to the Civil Service. It belongs to this House. We are accustomed in this House to avoid making attacks upon the Civil Service because we assume loyalty on the part of the Civil Service to the policy laid down by Parliament and so long as that is true they are entitled to be free from criticism. They can be free from criticism, however, only so long as the final decision as to policy remains with this House of Commons, and if people feel that they cannot carry it out conscientiously, they know what to do; they can easily hand in their resignations and give place to others who will be more loyal. So long as this is the policy of Parliament, it is the business of people in Palestine and here in London to be loyal to the decision of Parliament, which is that Palestine, which is so dear to the minds and hearts of the people of all races, should be administered for the common good and wellbeing of all.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. de Rothschild: While we are discussing several Supplementary Estimates to-day, the interest of the discussion seems to centre round those which are concerned with Palestine, and I will mainly concern myself with them. I hope

to say nothing which will in any way embarrass the new High Commissioner in Palestine. He has gone out there with a very difficult task in front of him, and he has already, in his broadcast, shown himself independent and just in his outlook, and we can only look to his future administration with favourable anticipation. I may say the same of the new commanding officer who has been sent out to command the troops. We hope that he and the High Commissioner will be able to work in close unison for the betterment of conditions in Palestine.
As regards the three items which are on the Order Paper for discussion, I should like to deal first of all with the one which provides for a hydrographic survey, which is very important. Sir John Hope-Simpson, in a report published in 1930, urged such a survey, and, as was shown by the Secretary of State this afternoon, the Peel Commission quoted that report and added:
Very little has been done by the Government to discover water in Palestine.
The Peel report went on to recommend
that an authoritative estimate be made of the practical possibilities of irrigation,
and I am very glad that this recommendation is now to be carried out, because the progress of Palestine depends very largely on the supply of water. In the last 10 years new sources of water have been discovered there which will make a very great difference to the development of the country. Some 10 or 15 years ago families in Palestine could only live on an area of 300 dunams of land; to-day families are being settled on areas of from 20 to 30 dunams. The irrigation work has so far been done mainly by philanthropic corporations and several smaller Jewish enterprises, but it is interesting to note that in the last 10 years 400 wells have been bored, which can irrigate 325,000 dunams of land, and this, of course, is only a fraction of the work that remains to be done. As has been pointed out, the survey which is being undertaken will be invaluable for the whole of Palestine, and particularly so if the water table of spring and artesian water is actually located, and also if all sources of irrigation are studied with a view to making the scientific and economic use of water possible in all regions.
I may say that, in full agreement with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr.


Morgan Jones), I view with pleasurable anticipation the effect this survey will have on the Southern district of Palestine. I refer to the large uninhabited district lying South of Beersheba going by the name of Negeb, and it is interesting to point out that in this district three civilisations have flourished in the past—the Semitic, the Roman, and the Byzantine. In the Byzantine period six large towns flourished in that district, and the population has been estimated at 100,000 people. Obviously, with a proper irrigation system prosperity might again prevail. That the soil is capable of development has been shown by the experiments which have been made by Colonel Jarvis, which have enabled the growing of a great variety of crops.
We are asked to sanction two other items. One, as has been pointed out, is a very large increase for defence, and the smaller sum of £500 is necessary for the fact-finding Commission, the terms of reference of which are set out in the White Paper. The White Paper has also an important bearing on the question of security, because it confirms the impression of uncertainty with regard to the future of Palestine, and thus it has to a certain degree encouraged terrorism and increased the need for defence. I should like to point out that, although the Committee is asked to vote this sum for defence, it is stated in the White Paper, but I regret that it has not been stated here this afternoon, that it will be repaid by the Palestine Government. I think that is a very interesting point, and I am glad to bring it to the notice of the Committee, if it has not been read in the White Paper, because it shows that the Mandate is not costing this country large sums of money. But whoever pays for these Estimates, whether it is the Home Government or the Government in Palestine, it is a heavy price indeed to pay for terrorism, and a price to which we must add the cost in lives, British, Jewish and Arab.
Now, if I may go into the disturbed condition in Palestine, which has been described by the right hon. Gentleman, I would draw attention to the fact that last year, in 1937, although there was no strike, there were 194 murders committed, 281 attempted murders, daily hold-ups, mining of railways, and nightly attacks on property, and it is regrettable

that in the past—and it may in some measure account for the increase in these Estimates—the civil and military authorities have revealed a singular lack of cooperation. As I have already said, I hope that under the new administration there will be a closer co-operation between the civil and military elements.
Palestine, owing to its geography, is well adapted to banditry, and it appears that the present terrorism reigning there is in a large measure spread by bands from outside. It is alleged and believed in Palestine that the Mufti, who is at present residing in Beyrout, is receiving every month a subsidy of £5,000 from outside sources, and it may well be possible, because if you read the papers of yesterday, you will see that in the last outrage by an Arab band which took place, machine guns were used by the Arabs, and 9,000 rounds of ammunition were captured, last week-end. It is very doubtful that these large armaments were purchased by impoverished Arab villagers; it is much more likely that what is believed in Palestine, namely, that large sums from outside are being disbursed, is true. What is certainly true is that the Mufti's emissaries are keeping him in touch with developments in Palestine and elsewhere, and I may in passing draw the attention of the Committee to one fact, namely, that Nuri Pasha, when he came here and was received by the right hon. Gentleman, returned to Palestine and to Syria and reported to the Mufti in Beyrout. Small wonder that the people in Palestine, the terrorists and the villagers who are concerned, should think that the British Government are once more prepared to deal and have flirtations with the Mufti in Beyrout. The Mufti is reported in Palestine to have said:
Terrorism has killed the Mandate; terrorism will kill partition.
In the old days the Sultan in Constantinople issued his edicts, and his firman used to run throughout the Turkish Empire. To-day the Mufti issues his firman from Beyrout, and his writ runs in the British mandatory territory. Can we wonder that we require a further large sum for the troops that are necessary in Palestine? The danger which exists in Palestine is one which must not be minimised. The Mufti has said also, and it is believed in Palestine:


Concentrate on the British in Palestine; they are our enemies.
After the tragic murder of Mr. Andrews we had that of Mr. Starkey, a distinguished archaeologist, who was a perfectly harmless personage and a great friend of the Arabs, who had spent the whole of his life in trying to develop Arab culture and to discover the treasures of old Palestine. It is one thing to be asked to vote £423,000 for a certain purpose, but it is another thing to carry that purpose out, and I hope I shall be in order in saying that, as long as Arab extremists find terrorism successful, for so long will this money be expended in vain, and for so long will the courage of officers and men be useless.
The Arab Press declared as early as September last that the Cabinet were divided on the question of partition. No one in this country knew anything about it, but there is apparently a sounding board in Beyrout for even the most secret transactions of our Government. When the White Paper which we are discussing to-day was published, those newspapers claimed that their forecast was confirmed. The delay and lack of decision which are displayed in this White Paper are the sort of thing which encourages terrorism. It is therefore urgent that the fact-finding Commission which has been sent out should arrive at its conclusions as quickly as possible in order to put an end to the procrastination. The White Paper proposes that action should be only exploratory in character for some time to come, and it is full of uncertainties. It says that the work of the Commission may take some months, and that if, as a result of the Commission's investigation a scheme of partition is regarded as equitable and practicable by His Majesty's Government, and if the League of Nations approves of it, even then a considerable period must elapse before a new system of government can be set up. Behind all these "ifs" there is the suggestion of cantonisation.
I agree with other hon. Members on this point. Is it conceivable that the population of Palestine, seething as it is, will wait patiently for this conclusion to be come to? Terrorism thrives on this uncertainty, and that is why we are faced with the Estimate to-day. The Mufti claims that terrorism has paid in the past; it may be claimed that it is paying to-day,

I do not want to touch in any way upon the question of immigration, except to say that the Balfour Declaration is still binding and that it is a triumph for the extremists and the terrorists that immigration should now be suspended or should be reduced to an exiguous trickle.
The expenditure which we are asked to sanction figures under the heading of "Defence," and not under that of "Security." And rightly so. Foreign subsidies are being given to the Arabs; therefore, in fighting terrorism, we are fighting the enemies of our own Imperial interests. We know from the Italian papers that they are in favour of a Jewish State: but a Jewish State anywhere but in Palestine. Why? Because the Italian dictator knows the value of Palestine and of Jewish loyalty to Great Britain in strengthening British Policy and in safeguarding Imperial communications. Recent developments which have taken place in Egypt and Abyssinia show that strategical considerations, which first became apparent during the War, are more important to-day than they ever were.
One of the terms of reference of the fact-finding Commission is:
to take into account representations of the different communities.
I humbly submit that that is impossible while terrorism is rife. I believe that in the case of the Peel Commission there was a delay because it was considered that they could not arrive at any conclusion while terrorism was so rampant. To-day there is very much the same position. Moderate Arab opinion is prevented from finding a means of expression; it is well known that moderate Arabs are being terrorised in Palestine, and that many moderate Arabs have left the country. One imagines that it will be very difficult for the Commission to get into touch with the other and most valuable elements in Palestine with whom it could be hoped that the Jewish population would come to a friendly agreement on the basis of good understanding and unity in contrast to their present condition of fear and oppression. The chief task of the Commission is the delimitation of boundaries. I shall abstain from discussing partition, but I agree with the hon. Member for Caerphilly that the Mandate can still be worked. It is by the carrying out of that great promise which was made by the British Government that the future of


Palestine could be assured in the most peaceful and happy way to both sections of the population. Moreover, in accepting responsibility for this tripartite partition arrangement, the Government may incur not only a heavier responsibility but heavier expense in treasure and in men than they have paid up to the present.

When the question of partition is looked into, due regard must be paid to the economic strength of the two States. The Arab State will be surrounded by friendly neighbours with whom it will be culturally and economically associated and by whom it will be fed economically, and by the great hinterland of Arab-speaking countries which will surround it. The Jewish State will be isolated, and it is therefore essential that it should be large enough to make sound economic development possible. Its whole existence will depend on the size of its boundaries and the possibility of its being developed economically. I regret that it will at first be surrounded by States which are at the present time disinclined to co-operate. I hope disinclined for a time only. It will therefore have to be self-supporting, and every acre of cultivable land is of the utmost importance. The Commission will also have to deal with a very extended range of matters: finance, railways, ports, postal services, customs, industrial concessions, changes of population, rights of minorities and so on. Their main task is that of the boundaries and of settling boundaries which will not create impossible conditions.

It would be the height of folly if the Jewish people and their leaders undertook to work a Jewish State unless it were adequate in every way. I believe I have spoken not only for myself in what I have said but for my hon. and right hon. Friends whose political home is on these benches, but I should like to say on my own behalf that I am glad that the Jewish population in Palestine are being allowed to take part in defence. A large number are now enrolled as supernumerary police and they feel keenly the loss of life among the British Army and police. If the Government are successful in carrying out the policy of partition, the Jews will be prepared to assume responsibility for law and order. I believe they are not unmindful of the part which the British Empire has played in their own history and in the establishment of the Jewish

national home. And I trust and believe that any Jewish State which may be set up will follow the example which has been set to it by this country, by England, in extending just and liberal treatment to all its citizens of whatever race and whatever creed.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Amery: Before I speak upon the major subject of to-day's discussion I wish to say a word on the item relating to British Guiana and our responsibility to the Assyrians. I entirely agree with the conclusion of my right hon. Friend that the suggested area of settlement in British Guiana would not be suited to a people accustomed to a much colder and drier climate. All I should like to ask him is that, when replying to the Debate, he should give the Committee an assurance that the British Government have not abandoned their sense of responsibility for those people, who gave us such devoted and valuable service during many years, and who have suffered so terribly, largely because they were one of the instruments of British rule during the years when we were carrying out the administration of Iraq. We have undertaken, in conjunction with Iraq and in some measure with the League of Nations, to find large sums for them which, owing to the failure of a particular scheme, are not now required. I hope that that does not mean that the British Government think they can wash their hands of responsibility for the Assyrians, either those who are now settled, we hope permanently, in the north-eastern corner of Syria, or those who are still in Iraq. There is still an obligation of honour and conscience that we should enable this small remnant of a once great Christian people somehow to find a tolerable life within the two countries in which they are now resident.
I would begin, turning to the major subject of Palestine, by re-echoing what the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) said just now about the good wishes from every quarter of the House that must accompany Sir Harold MacMichael in undertaking a task of extraordinary difficulty for which, both by temperament and training, he is exceptionally fitted. The task of restoring order, as has been truly said, is an essential element in any settlement, whatever the terms of that settlement may be. I


hope I may also be allowed to add just one word about his predecessor. It may be that his hopes of maintaining good will in all parties by a policy of leniency have been frustrated by the result; history alone will judge of that period of Sir Arthur Wauchope's administration; but I think it is worth while recalling to the Committee that for something like five years he administered Palestine with the affectionate and enthusiastic support of all sections of the community. They recognised his sincerity, his deep interest in all their problems, and his genuine love of the peoples of both races in Palestine; and it is, I think, significant, and not without hope for better things, that, in spite of the recent troubles, Sir Arthur Wauchope has taken leave of Palestine amid manifestations of genuine affection from every section of the people.
With regard to the work of the Technical Commission, I do not think it is necessary for me here to argue the general case for or against partition. On a previous occasion I have given the reasons why, with regret but still quite definitely, I have accepted the policy of partition, not as in itself the best, but certainly as the best in the circumstances which have come about. There is just one thing that I should say. The Peel Commission did not recommend the solution of partition as a device for abandoning the pledges that we have given to the world, or to the League of Nations, or to the peoples concerned. The Commission did not conceive of partition in that spirit, nor, I am sure, have His Majesty's Government accepted it in that spirit. It was conceived as an alternative method of implementing those pledges, a method more workable and more acceptable to both the parties most concerned. The basis of it still remains the fulfilment, if not of the literal terms, at any rate of the spirit of the Mandate, and it seems to me to be clear that, in addition to the detailed items given in the terms of reference the spirit of the Mandate must be the general basis governing the work of the Technical Commission. Partition is not a means of liquidating the Mandate in order to divide Palestine as between the Jews who are now there and the Arab population.
This is a point which necessarily arises when we deal with some of the actual sub-heads of the terms of reference.

Under (1, b) you have the point of the inclusion of as few Arabs and Arab enterprises as possible in the Jewish area, and vice versa. If it were a question of dividing Palestine as between the Jews now there and the Arabs, obviously you would draw a boundary as closely round the existing Jewish settlements as you could, and leave every substantial body of Arabs without that boundary. But that would not in any sense be carrying out the spirit of the Mandate, because it would obviously preclude any such development of Jewish immigration as would make the Mandate policy possible, or would give to the Jews in any sense the equivalent of what they would have got in immigration if the Mandate had been loyally and consistently fulfilled. Clearly, therefore, the question of the Arabs that may be included within the boundary of the Jewish State must not be judged by reference to the number of Jews who are now at this moment in Palestine.
It is absurd, I think, to talk as if it were the case of the inclusion of 300,000 Arabs, shall I say, in a State containing 400,000 Jews. The true perspective is the relation of whatever Arabs it may include at this moment to the eventual total Jewish population of the new Jewish State; and, indeed, I assume that, the moment a boundary is accepted by the Government, they will take every step to discourage Jewish settlement in the area outside that boundary, but also to encourage to the fullest possible extent Jewish settlement within that boundary, so that, before the period of transition is over, the relative proportions of the populations will have entirely changed. Therefore, I should like my right hon. Friend to make it clear in his answer, and to give the Committee an assurance, that the general basis upon which the Technical Commission is appointed is the fulfilment of the recommendation of the Peel Commission, not so much as regards the exact boundaries, but as regards a partition carried out in the spirit of the Mandate, and not a partition to liquidate and abandon the Mandate by dividing Palestine with reference to the existing distribution of population.
From that point of view the boundary which the Peel Commission themselves suggested, although open to criticism on points of detail—a matter with which I have dealt on another occasion, and with


which I do not desire to deal now—can be regarded, broadly speaking, as a fulfilment of that general overriding consideration, and I hope that my right hon. Friend can give the Committee the assurance, with reference to the work of the Technical Commission, that there is no question of that broad general basis, as recommended by the Peel Commission, being transformed into something inconsistent with the spirit of the Mandate, and, therefore, naturally, wholly unacceptable to the Jews.
Passing to the question of the mandatory responsibility of His Majesty's Government, the Committee will remember that the Commission recommended the retention of mandatory authority by His Majesty's Government, not only over the city of Jerusalem and the cities of Bethlehem and Nazareth, but also over a strip of territory between Jerusalem and the coast. I am not sure that in that recommendation there was not a certain confusion of thought, to which it is very important that the Technical Commission should give special attention. There are certain purposes for which it is essential that the Holy Places should be under absolutely neutral and impartial control—not only the purposes of law and order, but cultural purposes and for the preservation of the dignity and amenity of the Holy Places themselves. On the other hand, it seems to me very doubtful whether it is necessary to set up, in a little strip a few miles wide between Jerusalem and the coast, or in Jerusalem itself or in Nazareth or Bethlehem, a separate agricultural department, a separate educational system, or a separate railway administration, in one case less than 10 miles in length, and whether it would not be better to divide the country completely for ordinary purposes of political government and administration, retaining as an overriding measure the complete mandatory control over the Holy Places themselves, with a complete right of the mandatory to secure free movement for its troops and for everyone concerned, not only along the strip between Jerusalem and the coast, but over the whole of both areas.
It seems to me that on such lines a simpler and more effective administrative solution is likely to be obtained than by setting up small areas to include every phase of the activities of government.

Moreover, that would be carrying out the spirit of the Commission's report, which is to give self-government as soon as possible to all concerned, both Arabs and Jews; and it would also make it possible for the Arabs in Jaffa or in the Arab districts round Jerusalem, and, conversely, for the Jews in the great Jewish suburb outside Jerusalem, to live for all other purposes, except law and order and cultural purposes, as free citizens in their own States. In that way some of the numerical problems in Jerusalem and elsewhere will be more easily dealt with, and the mandatory authority can confine itself strictly to the particular purposes for which it is mandatory, namely, law and order and the preservation of the Holy Places, leaving such questions as education, agriculture and all the rest to the communities concerned.
There is, however, in that aspect of the matter, one exception for which a strong case can be made, and to which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has already referred—the case of the Negeb. That can only be a white elephant if added to the Arab State. Its coastline is purely fictitious as a coastline; there is not the slightest possibility of the Arab State being able ever to create a port there, or of that port having any trade or any communication behind it. Moreover, whoever occupies that territory will have a number of difficult frontier questions to deal with. There is the frontier of Egypt; there is a frontier with the Hejaz about which there is a certain amount of contention over Akaba; there is the frontier between the Jewish State and the Arab State; there are possibilities of smuggling on the coast and so on. From all these points of view it would, I think, be better that that region should be retained under direct mandatory administration, and perhaps worked in fairly close conjunction with the Sinai administration. In that case the question whether the area might possibly become eventually an area of closer settlement is one that could be left over, the necessary research and administration could be carried on under the auspices of the British Government, and any proposals for its development could be considered on their merits.
That is all I wish to say except just this with regard to the task before the technical commission. The report of that Commission, and the decision of the Gov-


ernment upon it, will decide one way or the other whether the great experiment upon which we embarked at the close of the War is going to be something that will sooner or later peter out for want of roots, or whether it is on a sufficiently broad foundation for the eventual fulfilment of the aims that were in the minds of those who launched it.
If the base is adequate it will enable us to do something substantial to mitigate the suffering of a race which in wide areas of Europe to-day is undergoing a measure of oppression, humiliation and degradation such as few of us would have thought conceivable only a few years ago. If it succeeds we may have in that part of the world a prosperous, virile, strong community, bound to this country by ties of gratitude which I believe would prove lasting; an ally who, in some moment of difficulty, may well repeat the old fable of the lion and the mouse, and render services out of all comparison with their actual numbers, or even with the efforts we may have made on their behalf. From a point of view even wider than that of the British Empire, I know that it was in the mind of Lord Balfour, and others when they gave their pledge that the establishment of a Jewish national home—

The Deputy - Chairman (Captain Bourne): The right hon. Gentleman is now getting on to questions of general policy.

Mr. Amery: I only tried in my last sentences to emphasise the importance of the boundary which the Commission are now going to recommend. The concluding point I was going to make was that what is now done will affect the whole question of whether that community will be able by its influence—by what it brings of Western culture, Western enterprise and Western thought into that part of the world—to play a part in the regeneration of the Near East by fruitful and practical co-operation with its neighbours, because I am convinced that sooner or later—and I hope it will be sooner—co-operation will follow partition. I may, with your permission, Captain Bourne, draw just one parallel from the past. There have been two great efforts in the history of the past to bring the West to the Near East. There was the effort of the Crusades, which petered out for want of support and the inade-

quacy of the area which the crusading armies tried to hold. There was the conquest of Alexander many hundreds of years before, which brought to the whole of that Near Eastern world the benefit of Greek thought and Greek culture, which was followed by nearly a thousand years of prosperity and happiness in an area which for so many centuries since has lain derelict. The decision of the Technical Commission, and the decision the Government have taken on that, will decide one way or another for us whether we embark on an experiment on which the word "failure" must ultimately be written, or an experiment so successful that it will not only help the Jewish people in the hour of their dire need, not only contribute to the strength of the British Empire in a vital part, but also contribute to the regeneration of a great region of the world, once highly prosperous and civilised, the source, indeed, of all our Western civilisation, and, I hope, yet destined to be an integral and leading part of the civilised world.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: I am not going to detain the Committee many moments, because so many hon. Members wish to speak, and also because the speech that I desire to make would be completely out of order, according to the Ruling of the Chairman, but I wish to join those who have made an appeal to the Government on behalf of that small band, the Assyrians. The position in which they find themselves is really terrible, and I should like our Government to deal with them generously, irrespective of what any other Government might feel. We are rich enough ourselves to deal with them, and I think we owe a duty to them, and a duty to ourselves, to see that they are rescued from the position that they are now in. With regard to Palestine I wish to ask that you, Captain Bourne, or whoever occupies the Chair when the Minister comes to reply, will make it possible for him to tell us something about immigration into Palestine.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman addressed a question to me. I must hold that this is a matter to be raised when the main Estimates come up.

Mr. Lansbury: I am speaking now with regard to the fact-finding commission. It is rather an appalling picture that my


hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) and other hon. Members have drawn as to the possibility of it taking a couple of years before this matter can be brought to a head. The Minister was, I think, at Geneva when these questions were discussed, and must have heard or read the speeches of the Polish delegates and others on the urgency of coming to decisions in regard to Palestine and immigration. Anyone who knows anything about Central Europe knows of the thousands of poor Jews, living horrible, destitute lives, who are hoping and praying that by some means the avenues for entering Palestine will be opened wider than they are at present. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to expedite the work of the Commission and the consideration of their report. After the Commission have reported, it takes so long for the report to go to the League of Nations, and then from there to somewhere else. I am pleading for expedition in the matter, in order that thousands who are living in semi-starvation may have some chance of going into that country.

6.9 p.m.

Captain Cazalet: In regard to the Assyrians, I feel that we are under a particular obligation to them, and we must not put off either the expenditure of money or the taking of whatever action would be possible and right simply on the ground that other countries have not made up their minds, or are not prepared to consider it. The decision must be ours, even if we have to pay more than we ought because other countries will not pay. With regard to Palestine, I hope I shall keep strictly within the ruling of the Chair. Two subjects that arise are, of course, law and order and policy. The position in regard to law and order has been largely influenced, of course, by the fact that in past years there has been either vacillation of policy or lack of policy. But, even then, I do not think that is any excuse for the long chapter of murders which have taken place in Palestine, not only in the last two years, but over a great many years. It seems that there must be something fundamentally wrong in the administration of a country which is only the size of Wales in which, at certain times, 11 British battalions have been garrisoned, and in which we are yet unable to prevent an average of three murders a week.
The right hon. Gentleman made reference, on one item of the Vote, to the maintenance and use of troops. He has told us that in the last year or 18 months there have never been less than six battalions in Palestine. Why is it that a force as large as that has been unable, if it has been profitably and efficiently used, to prevent this sad sequence of events? It seems to me that either they have not been used as they should have been, or something else is lacking. I do not suppose that under this Vote we are entitled to talk about the police; but it will be remembered that the Palestine Army was abolished in 1926, and that since then the police force has taken on a totally different complexion from that it had before. It seems to me that the police force in Palestine is not the right kind of body.

The Deputy-Chairman: No money is being voted to the police.

Captain Cazalet: I will only say that, whatever may be the position in regard to the police, the military have not been able to contribute as they should have done to the maintenance of law and order. I cannot help thinking that one of the reasons is that there has been a lack of co-operation between the military and civil powers in Palestine. I hope and trust like all Members in all parts of the House, that with the appointment of a new High Commissioner, that lack of cooperation will cease. I cannot believe that the force of six battalions, two Air Force squadrons, and various ancillary troops, which my right hon. Friend told us was working in close conjunction with the police and civil authorities, will not be able to establish law and order in Palestine. It does not matter whether it is partition or a return to the Mandate or the federal state; whatever policy is finally decided, unless law and order is established, you are not going to be able to put it into execution. I believe that a return to law and order would be as welcome to the Arabs in Palestine to-day as to the Jews and Christians.
I think it is a great pity that on the new Technical Commission there is not one member of the old Royal Commission, in order that a sequence of policy may be carried out. There have been many doubts expressed as to the intentions, and the work which this new Commission is to do in Palestine. I confess


at once that when the White Paper of 6th January was issued, it certainly caused great dismay throughout the whole community in Palestine. Without doubt it acted as an encouragement to all those elements who either did not want partition or a settlement of any kind. It breathes delay and procrastination almost on every page; if that is just estimation of the White Paper, one can feel some sympathy with those who do not regard this Commission as a fact-finding Commission but rather, as it has been named out there, a repeal Commission.
The Government have given us, I am glad to say, a number of specific answers to questions, and I hope and trust that these definite answers will allay some of the very natural suspicions which, at first reading, the White Paper engendered not only in Palestine, but outside as well. It is quite right that questions of boundaries, railways, revenue, customs, central courts, rights of minorities, and so on, should be investigated, but there must not be any tampering with the boundaries which were put forward by the Royal Commission. No doubt there may be certain alterations of minor details, but I am convinced that, if there is any fundamental change, for example, the exclusion of a large part of Galilee, or some fundamental alteration of that nature, the Jews would have an absolute right to refuse partition, and I for one would heartily support them in doing so.
I cannot understand the reason for this long delay. There is no country in the world where so many surveys have been made as have been made in Palestine. Every orange grove has been noted and the inhabitants of every village have been checked and counter-checked time without number. A delay of months and months is not necessary. Somebody today has mentioned a period of two years; surely, a delay of that kind is not required if the Government themselves want a decision on this matter. I ask the Government to expedite a decision. Of course, any one can always invent and find reasons for not coming to a decision. It is always easier to put off a decision if it is likely to entail trouble or difficulties, but I believe that in the East, and in Palestine more than perhaps anywhere else, it is vital, if you want peace and good will, to come to a decision. I am

quite sure that only when that decision is made, and the two separate sovereign States are set up as foreshadowed and promised in the report of the Royal Commission, and as endorsed by the Government at Geneva, will we get what all of us have so ardently desired in Palestine, namely, a measure of good will between the Jews and Arabs.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Crossley: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) has been the fifth consecutive speaker who is known to very strongly favour the Zionist point of view. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) achieved in his peroration the greatest effort on a Supplementary Estimate that I have ever heard, and it is a little difficult for us who have no wish, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothchild) who spoke for the Liberal party, said at the beginning of his speech, to make things more difficult in Palestine at the present day, to prevent ourselves from replying to some of the criticisms which we have heard inserted into the detailed business of a Supplementary Estimate. I am going to try to keep to the point. But there is one general remark which I should like to make to my hon. and gallant Friend. He criticised the Army in Palestine at the present moment and could not understand why it had not completely stopped terrorism. He spoke of a country the size of Wales.

Captain Cazalet: I did not criticise the Army. I said that, as there were six battalions there, surely, it must be because the Army had not been used as it should be used, and we know that the battalions have been kept in barracks during the whole of the last 18 months. It was not a criticism of the Army.

Mr. Crossley: A criticism that the Army may not have been sufficiently used. I certainly do not wish to misinterpret what my hon. and gallant Friend said. He should picture for himself the Palestine which he knows, all the months, except in the winter, when men can lie out on the hills. He should picture a country which is not unlike Spain, which he also knows, a country of scrub and boulders, easy for snipers and easy to hide in, a country the size of Wales, but perhaps longer, and he should


then think of the six battalions with a few auxiliary troops and aeroplanes in a country where aeroplanes cannot see very much below. I do not think that the officers and men of these troops would complain that they have not been used enough. I believe that the criticism is ill-founded because my hon. and gallant Friend has not quite properly visualised the difficulties before the troops which are as great as the difficulty of working the Mandate itself.
There is one other criticism I should like to make of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones), who spoke for the Labour party. He did not exactly attack the Civil Service but he did the nearest thing to it I have ever seen. He became extremely heated, raised his voice very loud and thumped the Box very hard. What was he doing it for? He said that if civil servants were not loyal they could be dismissed and that others more loyal should be found. Why did he say that if he has not some disloyalty in mind? Does he mean that there has been some disloyalty, because if so I take him up very strongly and say that I do not believe there are a more loyal body of civil servants than the civil servants who serve this country in Palestine and the civil servants in this country who have to administer an extremely difficult Mandate.

Mr. Morgan Jones: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view and I will hold to mine.

Mr. Crossley: Then the hon. Member does directly attack the fairness of the civil servants. I am entitled to my opinion and I say that I believe they are as fair a body of civil servants as have ever acted in any Department of State.
I want to make a few general observations upon the work of the Technical Commission. I shall try to keep in order. I am very glad to see that the States which are to be outlined are to be self-supporting. I want to take up my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook on two points about the actual divisions of the States. He said that he thought that at least there should not be any such nonsense as to talk about 300,000 Arabs in a State containing 400,000 Jews. That was not the spirit of carrying out the Mandate which we were to carry out in

the future as in the past, and which should be implicit in any scheme of partition. He said further—and I do not want to misinterpret him—that it would be reasonable if the boundaries laid down for the Jewish State were considerably wider than the tentative boundaries suggested in the report of the Royal Commission.

Mr. Amery: I said that on a previous occasion I raised some question as to the details of the boundary, but broadly speaking I regarded the report as a basis for settlement.

Mr. Crossley: Am I right in interpreting my right hon. Friend as having said that it would be nonsense to talk of 300,000 Arabs in a State which contains 400,000 Jews; that that was a proper argument to put forward? I would like to put this argument forward in direct reply to the argument put forward by a number of speakers about the Negeb. I do not think it nonsense to talk about a particular part of the area which contains 50,000 Arabs and under 1,000 Jews, and I am relieved to see in the terms of reference that the actual number of inhabitants in each area should be carefully considered. I hope very much that Galilee will not remain, as it was outlined, in the Jewish State, because up to now not 1,000 of the emigrant Jews who have come over there during all these years have taken the trouble to go and settle there. Northern Galilee remains a purely Arab area. I am also exceedingly relieved to find the inclusion of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 6 of the White Paper "the possibility of voluntary exchange of land and population." I am particularly glad to see that, because it appears to exclude the possibility of compulsory exchanges of land and population. I am not sure whether I am right in that interpretation, but I think that if that is what is implied it will relieve the minds of many Arabs about a matter which they have taken very much to heart.
I am very glad also to see that there are to be very effective safeguards for the rights of religious and racial minorities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook spoke about the permanent British Mandate for the Holy Places. I hope that that Mandate will not be smaller but larger in fact. Whatever the rights of the population may be in the Mandated territory, and however much they may be affiliated to their


respective States, Jewish or Arab, for certain matters and certain aspects of their lives, I hope very much the territory will in fact be larger. I hope that it will be larger from the strategical point of view, but that I cannot go into now. I hope it will be larger because I see the proposal for a permanent British Mandate in that area as a real safeguard for the future security and well-being of both the Arab and Jewish race. I believe that in the first years at any rate the Jewish State will need that safeguard.
I do not think the Jewish people in Palestine have ever displayed anything like sufficient gratitude to His Majesty's Government for what they have done for them in the past, and the vast amount of money which this country has spent upon Palestine. It always seems to me such a false position to stress the loyalty of the Jewish people to this country, as has been done over and over again in this House, and forget that the Arabs are potentially just as loyal, just as devoted and just as great friends to this country, and that their friendship in the Near East is, to put it at its lowest value, not less important to us in the future than the friendship of the Jews.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Denman: We have had some extremely interesting speeches, although the scope of the Debate is necessarily limited. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) made a specially important contribution, because he indicated that the Technical Commission might review both the character and the extent of partition to a degree which no other speaker has suggested. I hope the Secretary of State, when he replies, will indicate as far as he can, what the Technical Commission can do, and especially the order of its procedure and probable duration. One knows that the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer with precision, but our desire in this Debate is to help, not hinder him. We want to help him to produce some clarity into a very dark situation, to provide what the Prime Minister is always justly praising—the quality of confidence, so that the people may have a certain number of certainties from year to year, that they may know what their chances are likely to be for the next 12 months; their chances of living or of moving, and, in fact, whatever may affect their daily

life. The Secretary of State has told us that the survey has been going on and is not yet near completion, but he used very specific words when he said that until an effective picture of partition was provided by some such survey, you cannot with any certainty suggest conditions; you must know what population a given area can sustain before you can intelligently fix boundaries. That is obviously so, and the survey must reach a very advanced stage before the Technical Commission can decide on boundaries.
Boundaries are the first and most fundamental duty of the Commission. Obviously the financial and administrative provisions cannot be considered until you know within a reasonable proximity what the boundaries are going to be. I am amazed to hear that a high and valued Treasury official can be spared for the next month to this Technical Commission, because I should have thought that the kind of financial and administrative problems which he is so well able to consider will not be nearly ready for him to work upon. Until you have the boundaries—a highly contentious and difficult problem—fairly clearly in your mind, until you know that they will receive a reasonable acceptance on the part of many interested parties, including this House and the League of Nations, these financial details are extremely difficult, and it is perhaps almost useless to dwell upon them. However that may be, we must all feel that the process begun by the Technical Commission must be a lengthy and slow one. Indeed, if the work is to be properly done it is worth doing carefully, with great attention to detail, and with every attempt to get the best possible views that can be obtained upon it.
What we desire is that until this procedure is complete we shall have a definite assurance that the Mandate will be kept in full and effective operation. That, to us, is fundamental. I should be extremely reluctant to agree to voting this £500 unless we are sure that this expenditure and subsequent expenditure on similar objects, is accompanied by an effective administration of the Mandate until we reach the goal at which the Commission is aiming. When I speak of an effective administration of the Mandate I have specially in mind


Article 6, under which it is our duty to facilitate Jewish immigration.

Mr. Crossley: May I ask the hon. Member a question about immigration?

The Deputy-Chairman: That question clearly is not in order on this Vote.

Mr. Denman: I am not going into detail, but I am saying that I shall be reluctant to agree to this sum unless we have an assurance that the Mandate will be properly administered meanwhile.

Colonel Clifton Brown: Does that mean without any consideration for the rights of the existing population?

Mr. Denman: I do not mean to exclude any other provisions of the Mandate. My only other point is the matter of security. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) suggested that it was a hard task for a small body of soldiers to keep order in a large and difficult land. We shall all agree with that. But is it not better that we should economise on this Vote by importing Jews, by allowing the many more Jews in the new territory to provide their own police? I suggest that this is important as a matter of security, and also as a matter of economy. If instead of 100 soldiers we had 10,000 Jews, who are easy enough to come by, to provide their own police, we should effect better security at great economy—

Mr. Maxton: And armaments?

Mr. Denman: They would provide their own effective police, and the police are armed in Palestine. I say that this would be more economical, and would be far more effective as a weapon to maintain order than sending out troops from this country. Those are the only points I desire to put before the Committee, and I hope that the Secretary of State will give some attention to them.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. V. Adams: May I say to the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) and to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) how much I admire the skill with which they have made speeches of wide implications in a grievously confined area. I wish to endorse and emphasise in the few moments I propose to speak, something which has been said by the hon. Member for Central Leeds. We are

discussing to-night a Supplementary Estimate for increased defence. It is a substantial sum—£423,000. I suggest that it is a regrettable step, and one which could have been avoided if we allowed in Palestine a larger Jewish population by enlarging the volume of immigration. I know from a Ruling we have had earlier in the Debate that I must not develop that point, but I think it is relevant to say that if the Jewish population in Palestine were increased, the administration could recruit from it a Jewish defence force. I would go further—

The Deputy-Chairman: That is a matter which does not arise under the present Vote.

Mr. Adams: I am merely amplifying something which has been said by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) when he argued that by this means we should avoid losing a single Gentile English life. That, of course, would need a homogeneous population which could not be achieved overnight, but that is another reason why I should argue in favour of something which, I understand, is also out of order. More relevant, however, is the matter of boundaries which is mentioned in the terms of reference for the Technical Commission. It is to be regretted that the matter of boundaries has to be contemplated at all in the terms of reference. The Negeb, whose irrigation and consequent development may be contemplated under sub-paragraph H5 of the Supplementary Estimate, has been stated by some authorities to contain oil, although I believe the Secretary of State for the Colonies was sceptical earlier in the day about the presence of mineral wealth. But if there is a possibility of oil, there it is clearly something which needs industrious exploitation, and the Jewish record on the soil and in Tel-Aviv is evidence of what could be done in the Negeb. If the Jews are excluded, as they would be by inference, from the Negeb under the system of partition—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now anticipating what the partition may be. He must not anticipate the findings of the Commission, which has not yet come to a decision.

Mr. Adams: I appreciate that point. What I wish to say is that I do not want the whole purpose of the hydrographic


survey to be vitiated in advance. These are the only two points I have to put before the Committee, the first being that the expenditure on defence would really not be so necessary if we enlarged our policy and faced this problem with a greater determination and resolve to treat a population, which is at present suffering extreme tribulation throughtout the world, with a full measure of decency. May I be allowed to say that I hope His Majesty's Government may be able to stretch decency to the Jews even to the point of generosity?

6.45 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: I know what will be said about this Debate in Palestine. They will say that, as usual, the Members of the House of Commons put only the Jewish case, and that the Arab case was not given. They say that every time. But the Arab case cannot be put in the British House of Commons, for their case is that they want to get us out of Palestine, as they have got us out of Iraq, Egypt and Transjordan. Therefore, it is impossible for a British Member of Parliament to get up and support that case. We heard the speech of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley), but he did not put the Arab case. That case is simple, and is known to everybody in this country.

Colonel Clifton Brown: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman allowed to discuss whether we may put the Arab case or not?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) was not allowed to put that case.

Colonel Wedgwood: I thought the hon. Member for Stretford was given free leave to state his case. I am bound to say that he and I are almost perennial flowers which blossom every time Palestine is discussed. As I am a shareholder of Crossley Brothers, I wish he would not put his case so forcibly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am sorry. I was trying to make a mild joke, and did not mean a serious reflection on either of us. The real audience in this very serious Debate is not the Arabs in Palestine, but the 18,000,000 Jews and half-Jews throughout the world. They are the only people who will read the report of the Debate and the people who must listen-in. They

will read the report of the Debate because, of those 18,000,000 Jews, only 5,000,000 are safe in Great Britain and in the United States of America. The remainder are waiting to hear what we say in this Parliament, and what the right hon. Gentleman will say in 15 minutes' time. They are waiting with the noose round their necks. It is their fate which is in the balance, and we have to them a responsibility far beyond even responsibility to the British Empire.
To-day we are not allowed to discuss the question of immigration; but the only question in which those 18,000,000 Jews are interested at the present time is not partition, not the future government of Palestine, but whether they will be allowed one place on this earth to which they can go. That we are not allowed to discuss to-day; but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies that we have on the Order Paper notice of a Motion, for which we shall ask an early day, urging that at the end of this month the mandate should be restored and immigration should again be allowed on economic absorptive capacity. That is what the Jews want, and all the other matters which we are discussing are of comparatively minor importance to those 18,000,000 people.
Why is it that we are being asked to vote this extra sum of £100,000 for troops in Palestine? Why is it that the Government's Estimate, which we voted previously, and which anticipated the reduction of the troops to two battalions, has failed? It is because, when that Estimate was made, it was supposed that the Royal Commission's report was going to be carried out, and on the basis of that report the troops were to be reduced. It is because that report has not been carried out that we have not only to vote this money, but see a continuation of trouble in Palestine. I draw the attention of the Committee to a passage on page 140 of the Royal Commission's report, in which the Commission say:
Our point, once more, is that conciliation, like impartiality, has failed. If the patient treatment of the Arabs last year has been sharply criticised, its critics must confess that it had at least this merit. It proved to demonstration that conciliation is no use. It has now been tried for 17 years, and at the end the Arabs, taken as a whole, are much more hostile to the Government than they were at the beginning.


Everybody knows that that sentence, which has been endorsed over and over again by the right hon. Gentleman, is true; but what is the limitation of immigration to 12,000 a year except an attempt to conciliate Arab opinion? I shall be glad to know of any other grounds for that limitation, which is called the political high level, save an attempt to conciliate Arab opinion. I pass to another phase. The report animadverted very seriously on the memorandum that was submitted by 137 senior Arab officials and judges, urging the Government to change their policy in Palestine. That memorandum was followed by a further memorandum from 1,200 junior officials, and by an even more mutinous memorandum from the Arab judges of the Sharia Court. The Royal Commission remarked with some surprise that those memoranda were all received by the Administration—

Colonel Clifton Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain where this comes in the Supplementary Estimate?

Colonel Wedgwood: We are voting money because the Government have not carried out the recommendations of the Royal Commission's Report. The attempt to conciliate the Arabs has continued. It was only after many months that the right hon. Gentleman got rid of the Mufti, and only during last month were powers taken to remove some of those officials whose conduct was criticised by the Royal Commission nearly a year ago. Hon. Members opposite—and I think the Secretary of State—have criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) for venturing to question the loyalty of the officials in Palestine; but their loyalty was criticised by the Royal Commission. Over and over again, I have asked the right hon. Gentleman what action he proposed to take in regard to those judges in Palestine, and the answer has been that he was perfectly satisfied with their loyalty. Having given that answer—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the right hon. Gentleman is going beyond the subjects which he may raise on the Supplementary Estimate.

Colonel Wedgwood: I think, Captain Bourne, I am within my rights in pointing out that the failure to carry out the

recommendations of the Royal Commission has involved this country in more expenditure and Palestine in more disorders. Those three issues—the attempt to continue to conciliate by making concessions to the Arabs, to retain an administration which has proved lacking in some sense of duty, and to rely continually on the present police force, are certainly some of the reasons for this enormous additional expenditure. I will draw attention to one other statement of the Royal Commission, and it is in connection with martial law. They say that:
Such a situation can, in our opinion, only be remedied by the introduction of martial law.
As soon as the Commission's report appeared, the troubles simmered down a little, and the right hon. Gentleman thought that there was no need then to carry out that recommendation of the Commission and to establish martial law in Palestine. The trouble to-day is worse than it was before. Our six battalions there have more work than they can do, and there is not that full co-operation between the civil authority and the military authority which is necessary for the pacification of the country. How can the Government complain that law and order are still disturbed and that they are impotent to meet the situation, when they still refuse to give the military the right and the power to pacify the country? Recently, there have been no less than four incidents in connection with the Arab police. I will not go into the details of them now, although they are all germane to the question. In connection with the first three of them, I addressed questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, asking him why it was that the Arab police were surrendering and handing over their rifles and ammunition—

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is now criticising the general administration of Palestine. He must raise that subject on the main Colonial Estimates.

Colonel Wedgwood: We are at present being asked to vote an additional sum for British troops to keep order in Palestine, and that those troops would not have been necessary if there had been in Palestine a police force which was reliable. Why we cannot have a police force in Palestine which is reliable is a question


which we are entitled to ask and to which we are entitled to have from the right hon. Gentleman a straight answer. There are already 40,000 Jews capable of bearing arms, and I am glad to say that most of them are armed. Why cannot those men have the opportunity of defending themselves and protecting the country? Why cannot this necessary work of preserving law and order in Palestine be given more to the Jews, who are in the country and who could be armed to defend themselves at a much smaller cost to that country and to ourselves than is involved in employing British troops to do the work? Again, the report of the Royal Commission urges reforms in that direction, reforms which have been partially carried out, but only partially. It is not much use improving your police service unless at the same time you improve your judiciary service. We have those amazing figures of the amount of crime and the number of people actually convicted of crime which were given by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild), and the even more remarkable figures given before Christmas in answer to a question—424 murders and seven death sentences, of which only one has been carried out. While you have a judiciary in which the Government Advocate is an Arab and his representative at headquarters is an Arab—

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman is now going clearly outside Subhead E.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that the Prosecutor has ceased to be Prosecutor and that on the recommendation of the Commission two British counsel were substituted, but he goes on repeating these misstatements again and again.

Colonel Wedgwood: I asked for his removal a great many times before you granted it, and I understand that the man still draws his pay and is not doing the job. I am sorry to have drawn blood in that way, but when you have an official who is animadverted on by the Royal Commission as being of doubtful utility, when you have the Royal Commission pointing out that the police are not reliable and that the policy of conciliation has failed, and when we find the Government continuing for eight months after the Commission's report to retain the same High Commissioner, and

continuing the same policy, and when we now see the bill come in to be paid, I think it ill becomes the right hon. Gentleman to treat this matter lightly and to regard it as our duty to pay up £400,000 because he has not carried out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, but has delayed the matter and is only now sending out this fact finding Commission.
I will now turn to the fact finding Commission itself. This Commission is going out under the terms of reference contained in the White Paper. No one reading that White Paper can fail to see that it is a watering down of the recommendations made by the Peel Commission, which were put before the League of Nations and this House. Wherever in the original report a Jewish State was spoken of, the words "a Jewish area" are substituted. Special attention is called in the White Paper to the necessity of excluding certain Arab areas and we are told now unofficially that that involves the exclusion of Galilee and Haifa from the Jewish State.

The Deputy-Chairman: There is nothing in the Estimate to show what funds, if any, are voted for this purpose, and I have already ruled that we cannot anticipate in this Debate what may be spent in the future.

Colonel Wedgwood: In the White Paper there is a definite reference for the first time to the need of seeing that the maximum number of Arabs are excluded from the Jewish State and vice versa. That is new in the White Paper. It is in the terms of reference for the first time, and anyone reading that sentence must say to himself, Does this exclude Galilee? because we have had during these last nine months much agitation directed from the administration in Palestine in favour of excluding Galilee. We have the White Paper before us, and it mentions many other things which are a change on the original position. Is the Government now in process of changing its mind about partition? Is the Government anxious that the Jewish organisation should now reject partition? I do not know, but it is remarkable that the Peel partition has been opposed throughout by the Arabs—partition of any sort. They want to be self-governing. The Arabs have been opposed to partition right through, and because the Jews accepted partition it looks to me as if they are thought to be more squeezable and that by making a


few more concessions, we might again conciliate Arab opinion and manage to secure a partition scheme which the Arabs would accept, but which the Jews would reject. Well, I think that is dirty work at the cross-roads, and I am quite certain that the House of Commons—not merely those here in the Committee today, but the House of Commons itself—would resent bitterly and will not accept terms of partition which are unacceptable to Dr. Weizmann and the Zionist Organsation.
Personally my own view, and I think the view of most of my colleagues on these benches, is that we do not want partition at all, that we want the Mandate carried out, that we want Jews imported into that country, and we do not want to vote £500 for a fact finding Commission which could find out all the facts here without going to Palestine. We intend to have no part in evacuating the British Empire at the orders of the Mufti or the Arab kings. And, as for the future, I think we shall find that the more the Government press forward this question of partition and the more facts they find, the more opposition they will discover to it—opposition not only in this House, not only among Jews, but opposition among the officials in Palestine. A more impracticable scheme for solving difficulties and cutting the baby in half I do not know.
Solomon's solution, I believe, was that one party would make any sacrifice in order to save the baby. In this case neither party is prepared to sacrifice what they have. All the Jews ask for is the Mandate honestly carried out. All the British ask for is the Mandate, and all the Arabs ask for is that we should clear out, and we cannot afford to do that. But with this prospect before us of keeping in Palestine indefinitely a large British force at the expense of the British taxpayers, I think we must ask the Government, without all this undue delay, to make up their minds on one matter only and that one matter will seal the whole question. If they will make up their mind that the Jews shall be immigrated into Palestine—the largest possible number in the shortest possible time—if they will make up their mind to face Arab opinion on that, to cease conciliating their enemies and try to conciliate their friends, then you will find that the expense will vanish, but our good name will be restored, that

the Jews will be saved, and that the right hon. Gentleman may yet preserve a reputation for humanity, for justice, and for common sense.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am amazed at the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman's first line of attack on me was that there had been delay in carrying out the recommendations of the Peel Commission—why had I not gone forward immediately and with decision to implement the Peel Commission's Report? What does the Peel Commission recommend? Partition. And the right hon. Gentleman, speaking on behalf, not only of himself, but of all those of the Labour party, says that they are still opposed to any form of partition. Let us know where we are. The Labour party in this country are opposed to the policy of partition.

Colonel Wedgwood: No, I did not say the Labour party. I said I believed the majority of my colleagues.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The majority. As the official spokesman of the Labour party in winding up this Debate, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the majority of his colleagues are opposed to partition, and he blames me for not hastening on with partition! As usual his idea is to pick and choose those parts of the Peel Commission's report that suit his wholly one-sided view of the situation in order to do what? To make it more difficult for the British Government either to carry on the Mandate or to maintain law and order in that country and bring peace to Palestine.

Colonel Wedgwood: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is not true.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I say that it is, and that the right hon. Gentleman's whole attitude on this question of Palestine is one of the major causes of embarrassment and difficulty of successive British Governments.

Colonel Wedgwood: Successive Secretaries of State.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Successive British Governments. He utterly fails to accept what was laid down first quite clearly by the Labour Government in 1929 and 1930, of which he was a supporter,


which went to the League on this proposition that the Mandate, which he wishes to see implemented, but implemented in his own way, was a dual Mandate, with equal obligations to Jews and Arabs. Now, really, I ask the Committee to recollect his speech this afternoon. Was there anything but the utmost bitter contempt and hostility to Moslems in Palestine and a suggestion that the whole of the right was on the Jewish side, ignoring every Article of the Mandate which implies that we have an equal duty to all the native inhabitants of Palestine? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman stands up for native rights everywhere except in Palestine.

Colonel Wedgwood: Colonel Wedgwood rose—

Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. Far be it from me to wish to see two elder statesmen quarrelling in this way. But may I point out, Captain Bourne, that earlier in the Debate I heard successive Rulings—to none of which I take any exception—which ruled out specifically any discussion on the general question of policy and confined us narrowly to the Estimates. I am wondering whether those Rulings were intended to apply only to humble back-benchers or whether I shall be allowed to make a speech in reply to the Colonial Secretary, on the question of general policy which is now being raised by him?

The Deputy-Chairman: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going too much into general policy.

Colonel Wedgwood: I am sorry to have to force the right hon. Gentleman to listen to me for one moment. I do protest against the idea that Jewish immigration into Palestine is bad for the native Arab. It has raised the standard of wages and the whole position of the Arab population.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That clearly is out of order, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has made an attack on me personally and I have every right to reply to it.

Mr. Buchanan: Since when have Ministers resented attacks being made upon them?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: All along, in connection with Palestine the right hon. and

gallant Gentleman makes continual attacks on me, personally, and represents me as an enemy of the Jewish people. That is not so, and such statements are most unfair. With that I propose to leave the right hon. and gallant Gentleman because his speech dealt entirely with generalities. There was one exception. He asked us why we did not withdraw the British troops, arm the Jews and let them fight it out with the Arabs. That is a policy of complete despair.

Colonel Wedgwood: I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: If there was one thing that was made clear at Geneva and elsewhere, it was that Article 1 of the Mandate imposed on the mandatory Power, and the mandatory Power alone, the responsibility for maintaining law and order in Palestine. The mandatory Power in Palestine is this country. The task of maintaining law and order is a hard task indeed. I think these continual attacks on the troops, and attacks made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the Civil Service in Palestine, tend only to make the responsibility of the mandatory Power for maintaining law and order more difficult. Palestine is a heavy burden. We have in open rebellion and violent activity Arabs of Palestine and Arabs that have come into Palestine to support their coreligionists there. Yet successive Governments have had nothing from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman but criticism of the kind to which we have listened this evening—and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman claims to speak for the Jews. We have, as I say, a heavy task. We will discharge that task, and we will discharge it in the terms of the Mandate as they are, and not as they are read by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, until such time as the League of Nations sees fit to withdraw the Mandate.

The Deputy-Chairman: I really think the right hon. Gentleman is now going too far into general policy.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Therefore, it is essential that British troops should be in Palestine, and that this Supplementary Estimate should be presented to the Committee. As long as conditions obtain in Palestine such as those which obtain at present, these requirements are necessary.


I was asked certain specific questions with which I should like to deal at once, as I understand this Debate is to end at half-past seven o'clock.

Mr. Morgan Jones: I did not know that there was any agreement to that effect.

Mr. Attlee: There has been no agreement that the Debate should close at half-past seven. We know that it is to be interrupted at that hour, but it is for the House of Commons to decide whether it wants to continue the Debate later on or not. There has been no agreement on this side.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I understood from the Chief Whip of the Opposition that it would be convenient for the Opposition that this Debate should close at half-past seven o'clock and that a Vote should be taken before the consideration of the Private Bill.

Colonel Wedgwood: That was before the right hon. Gentleman made an attack on me.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: And what did the right hon. and gallant Gentleman do to me?

Colonel Wedgwood: Evidently annoy you.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) asked a question as to the basis of the terms of reference of the Technical Commission, and it is important that I should clear up these matters, because there are misunderstandings. The basis of the terms of reference of the Technical Commission is the Peel Commission's Report. I wish to make it clear that the Government stand exactly where they stood in the Debates last July. They still believe in partition; they are still determined to see the policy of partition through, but, in addition to the terms of reference necessitated by the recommendations of the Peel Commission, we have had to take into account the recommendations of the Permanent Mandates Commission at Geneva, and those are very important.

Mr. Morgan Jones: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Technical Commission is bound by the Peel Commission Report, does he imply that they are committed to a form of partition, and not

necessarily to the Peel Commission's particular form of partition?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: They are committed to the underlying principles. I cannot quote the exact words, but they are on record. They are not committed to the particular details which the Peel Commission themselves said were only tentative. They are not committed to the precise form of corridor suggested between Jerusalem and Jaffa if any form of corridor should be found necessary. At Geneva it was made clear by the Mandates Commission that they were not going to be rushed. Let us remember that we are not dealing here with a part of the British Empire. We are not dealing with British territory over which we have sovereign and final sway. We cannot carry out whatever policy we happen to like in regard to Palestine. We must have regard to the fact that this is not merely a mandated territory but an "A" mandated territory, and the first function under the Mandate is to prepare it for self-government. Self-government is the keystone of the Mandate.
It was, therefore, essential that we should take into account, in framing the terms of reference and in making clear the basis of those terms of reference, the views of the Mandates Commission. I will not quote them at length, but they are set out in full on page 230 of the report. They draw attention to the fact that the Council of the League in 1931, on the recommendation of the Permanent Mandates Commission, determined that before they would allow self-governing states to be set up and the responsibility of the mandatory Power to be diminished in any way, certain conditions should be fulfilled. Those were conditions dealing with minorities and with finance and other matters to which the Mandates Commission attached the utmost importance and they had to be fulfilled before any autonomous state could be set up. The terms of reference were drafted taking into account the Peel Commission's recommendations and the recommendations of the Mandates Commission. I hope that the Commission will be successful, but it must be recognised that this is a complicated and difficult matter.
Let me make another point clear. The counting of heads is not the only thing to be taken into consideration in drawing the line. Security has to be taken into


account. I have given one reason why the Government think it is better to take the advice of military, naval and other experts who have been paying attention to this problem of Palestine rather than to put one colonel, say, on the Commission itself. They are satisfied that the course which is being taken in that respect is the wise course. Equally they have to take into account questions of economics and finance. I am sure that the step which we are taking in setting up this Technical Commission is in accordance with the specific Resolution of this House last year, in accordance with the pledges and directions given at Geneva, and that it is an essential step towards appeasement in Palestine. Meanwhile, the firm re-establishment of law and order in Palestine by British agencies under British responsibility and British control remains our watchword. That cannot be delegated to any other authority. I want to make that point perfectly clear. There is no change in policy whatever, and we are following the procedure recommended by the League of Nations.

Mr. Morgan Jones: In view of the limited purpose for which the money is asked, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Colonel Wedgwood: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question. In that last sentence does he mean that the immigration policy is to be the "political high level" or that the old policy will be restored?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have made it abundantly clear that we have never adopted the recommendations of the Peel Commission's report in favour of the "political high level." We adopted a purely arbitrary level while conditions were being restored. There will have to be another arbitrary period. What that will be I shall announce in due course when it has been decided. It has not been decided yet.

Colonel Wedgwood: Not necessarily 12,000 a year.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I do not know, Captain Bourne, what are the limits of your Ruling on this subject, or how far I shall

be allowed to reply to the right hon Gentleman. I think it will be admitted that he covered a very wide ground, and I do not know whether I shall be allowed to go over the same ground and to point out the difficulties of the Palestine situation. But I wish to comment upon the fact that one of the protests made by the Minister was that he had been attacked by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). Since when has it become a theory in the House of Commons that Ministers should not be attacked? Is this some new attempt by Ministers to provide themselves with immunity badges? The theory that a Minister should not be attacked may be a nice thing for the purpose of getting through Supplementary Estimates, but—

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL (by Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

7.31 p.m.

Major Sir Ralph Glyn: I beg to move,
"That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is the ordinary means by which the London Passenger Transport Board must come to Parliament in order to get permission to carry through work essential for London traffic. The Bill contains no works of great magnitude, but they are all works which are essential if the schemes, many of which have been approved by this House, are to be put into execution. The most important matter in the Bill is that dealing with the Wood Lane scheme, which is necessary in order to provide additional siding accommodation and to carry out realignment of the railway to permit eight-coach trains to pass round the curve, which they cannot do on the present alignment. Unless this work is put through in proper time it will not be possible to complete the programme that has already been approved whereby trains


will run off the London Passenger Transport system on to the Great Western and complete the journeys to Ruislip and Denham. There is a large increase of population in that district, and this scheme is considered of great importance to enable workers to get into London. Unless this preliminary work at Wood Lane can be put through in time, it will inevitably delay the fruition of this important scheme.
Hon. Members will probably appreciate that, owing to the increased number of coaches attached to the ordinary trains run on the London Passenger Transport system and to the fact that the tunnels have been extended in many cases, the ventilation question becomes of great importance. With yesterday's Debate fresh in their minds, hon. Members will probably appreciate the fact that it is the duty of the London Passenger Transport Board to see that there is an adequate and proper ventilation throughout the tube system. If this Bill is not given a Second Reading, that work will be delayed. It has been found by practice that the ordinary extractor fans do not accomplish the work as satisfactorily as was once thought, and it is essential to acquire property and sink shafts in order to have clear ventilation to the upper air. I hope the House will appreciate that that is another part of this Bill which is of great importance to the comfort of the millions of people who use the London underground system.
The House will also realise that the Board have been in process of changing over the old tramway system to the trolley-bus system for the purpose of improving street traffic and speeding up the rate of vehicles; and another part of the Bill deals with that essential matter, the turning point where trolley-buses go round on a curve. That work is to be carried out at Highgate Hill, and it is of great importance because all the Archway routes, as they are called, will depend on that turning point. All those who wish to use the trolley-buses will feel it rather strange if these powers are not obtained so that that essential amenity can be given to the people who live in that part of the area served by the London Passenger Transport Board. Another matter contained in the Bill is the extension of time. In the Act passed in 1935 certain important works were autho-

rised, and some have not been completed, partly owing to difficulties of obtaining necessary material, and partly in order to push forward other works of perhaps greater importance.
I would mention only the following points which are contained in the Bill: The Harrow and Rickmansworth widening scheme, which is intended to serve the convenience of those people who are going out to live in the northern suburbs; Baker Street Station reconstruction scheme; sidings at the Elephant and Castle, and unless they are built it will be impossible to accommodate the necessary number of trains to serve the peak and rush hours; and the extension, from which no doubt hon. Members have experienced great inconvenience temporarily, at King's Cross where tremendous works are being carried out to meet the interchange arrangements for the convenience of passengers coming off the Great Northern line and joining that network of underground services which coalesce at King's Cross. At South Kensington there is another important work which is concerned with what is called a fly-over junction, which means that trains can reach a line on the far side which otherwise they would not be able to reach if they were all kept on the same level. This fly-over junction is of great urgency, and permission to extend the date for that and the other works is asked for a further period of 24 months up to October, 1940. The present permission under the Act of 1935 expires in October this year.
Another matter contained in the Bill, which is of vital importance in connection with the services of defence, is the interchange of electrical supply. In a time of emergency it is necessary to maintain the underground communications now more than ever. Until now it has been possible for the Board to rely solely upon their own sources of supply. I suggest it is worth the consideration of the House to decide whether it will throw out a Bill which would postpone the making of these junction arrangements with other electricity supply companies, which it is the duty of the Board to make, and so prevent these essential services being continued should one main temporarily be cut off. The Bill provides that the Board shall have power with the Electricity Board to make such agreements as are now considered essential to meet the new circumstances.

Captain Arthur Evans: Before my hon. and gallant Friend leaves the question of employés vis-à-vis Territorial Army service, will he tell the House how many women conductors the London General Omnibus Company employed in the last War, and whether he feels that the services rendered to the public on that occasion were not satisfactory because women were substituted for men in certain classes of work?

Sir R. Glyn: I would like to be allowed to postpone my reply to that question, because I am now dealing with what is in the Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend has raised a point which is not in the Bill. I am prepared to meet it if he will first do me the honour of listening to what is in the Bill, for it might be of some interest to him.
Clause 48 is rather an important provision, and I would draw particular attention to it because hon. Members have been sent various documents dealing with it. I would like to point out the origin of this Clause and why it is put in the board's Bill. A report was presented to the House in May last year by the Ministry of Labour—Command Paper 5464. That report was the result of an inquiry under the Industrial Courts Act which was set up to go into the questions and factors which governed the bus stoppage last year. In that inquiry a good deal of emphasis was laid on the fatigue and undue strain which the men suffered. If the Industrial Courts Act is not to be a dead letter as regards statutory undertakings, such as the London Passenger Transport Board, it is essential, if the board does its duty by its employé and this House, that it should attempt to give effect to the recommendations, and they do so in the Bill now before the House. I would like to read, because it is essential that I should do so, the terms of the recommendation as affecting Clause 48:
With regard to facilities for meals, this is a matter which can be met partially by the board by the provision of mobile canteens, such as they have recently begun to institute in cases in which satisfactory permanent facilities are not available. We appreciate the difficulties and expense of making adequate provision at terminals which are liable to have their location changed owing to the continual extension of the outer suburbs and the modifications of routes and services necessitated by traffic fluctuations. Where suitable provision and accommodation cannot

otherwise be made, we think that the cooperation of local authorities concerned should be given to secure the appointment of terminals at which refreshment facilities are available.
That recommendation of the Court of Inquiry is contained in this Bill. I submit that the board have done their duty and are anxious to carry out that recommendation. I would ask the House to consider what would be the position if they terminated for ever the bus routes at certain points while at the same time London County Council and other authorities are extending their housing schemes? If there is to be efficiency in housing, there must be efficiency in the transportation system in order to bring the workers to their work. I say, therefore, that we shall not get an efficient transport system unless we look after the interests of the men who serve the public. I ask hon. Members in all parts of the House to realise that if we are to make this service what it should be, something which will help the public of Greater London and London itself, we cannot ignore the recommendations of courts of inquiry, and the House should think twice before it turns down the first Bill introduced which contains a strong recommendation of that kind from a court of inquiry.
There seems to be an idea prevalent that the London Passenger Transport Board—of all authorities—wish to put down a shelter in the middle of a highway. In the old days there were cabmen's shelters, and there are now. If the men who drove horses required sustenance there is no reason why the men who drive motor vehicles and are subject to far greater strain should not get sustenance. Nobody wishes to put the shelters where they will block the highway. The whoie policy of the Board is to provide quick and safe transport between different points, and what folly it is to suppose they would put up a shelter in the middle of an essential highway. The legal term "highway" means I understand, the whole distance over the centre of the road to the sides of the pavement—from fence to fence or wall to wall.
In many cases it has been possible for the board to acquire shops or houses for the canteens, but in many cases that is not possible, and, as the recommendation itself says, although the shelters are called temporary and mobile, it is not intended


to have a kind of van on wheels, but to have something which can be picked up and taken where it has to go. I ask hon. Members to consider what will be the feelings of the men, who put their case very fairly to the industrial court, if this House turns down something which everybody is agreed is essential for the health and the comfort of the drivers and the conductors, and that means the safety not only of the passengers carried but of all people living in the London district. In regard to the provision which will be made, there is some idea that the board want to compete with private enterprise. That is perfectly untrue, but in places where it is impossible for the men to get what is necessary we believe it to be an obligation on the undertaking to provide at cost price good wholesome food. While I am talking of this it would be unfair if I did not say that, besides bodily sustenance, other amenities and facilities are provided for the men.
I come now, with the permission of the House, to deal with something which is not contained in the Bill, and that is the question of recruiting for the Territorial Army. Personally, I regret very much to find myself in the position of appearing to be the devil's advocate, but I support the Bill as it appears, and when this new matter is raised—I admit that it has been raised on previous occasions—it is no use running away from the case. The thing to do is to face up to it, and I will put the board's point of view as far as I can. I recognise that many people feel that it is the business of a great undertaking like the London Passenger Transport Board to set a very good example in this matter, and I believe that the Board are as anxious and as ready as any other public undertaking to do their duty in this respect, but I beg the House to remember two things. The first is that a transport undertaking has definite obligations and duties to the public, not only in peace time but certainly in war. I will read directly a statement which I think will put the thing concisely and enable the House to understand what is the position of those responsible, not only for people going about their everyday business but responsible in an emergency to maintain communications and also to fulfil their obligations by providing men who may be required to serve in different capacities. This is the statement to which I referred:

The board admit that the record so far as current war service is concerned would not appear satisfactory. Yet the Board have not refused anyone consent to serve in the Territorial Army. The board admit that something more might be done and are open to discuss the situation with the appropriate Government Departments at any time.
I should like the House to note this, especially with yesterday's Debate fresh in their minds.
The Board are not yet advised as to what is required of them in a state of emergency. There are many tasks to which their undertaking can be applied. It represents a specialised organisation of men and equipment which is certainly available for defence purposes. It would seem that there should be better ways in which it can be used effectively than through mere enlistment of the staff in the Territorial Army. The approach to a solution of the problem would not seem to lie through a decision of this House upon the resolution now before it, but rather through discussions with those responsible for the distribution of man power, having regard to all the tasks that will fall to be discharged in the event of war; and in any event the circumstances of transport undertakings differ largely from the circumstances of manufacturing and trading undertakings, so that special consideration will be necessary if the action to be taken will prove effective. Such action should be general and not particular in character. So far as the Board are concerned, they hold themselves ready to enter into such discussions whenever they are invited.
I would like to add one other point. The total number of men who are on the pay roll of the London Passenger Transport Board who belong to the Territorial Army is 383, but it must also be remembered that there are 1,815 Army Reservists who would be called up. The House probably knows that the board employ 82,000 men. Of those 82,000, 74,000 are highly specialised men. On the average it costs £25 to train each skilled man. Such men cannot be replaced, they are irreplaceable. I would beg the House to remember that those here who may vote against the Bill to-night would be the first to turn round and blame the board if, in an emergency, they could not provide all their services.
Last year it was properly and rightly agreed that all the employés should be entitled—as in the case of the main line companies—to have a fortnight's holiday with pay. In order that that should be done it was necessary to employ another 1,400 men. They have had to be taken on as extra to the normal establishment and trained so that they could replace those who are having their holidays. I do not say that theirs is an analogous


case with that of the 380 Territorials, I do not mean that at all, but I understand that the complaint is that the board do not at present pay to the men their full pay when they have that extra week in camp. I would point out that the position is easier for organisations which are not restricted by a rates tribunal in regard to what they sell, because, after all, the London Passenger Transport Board sells transport. We cannot shove up the fares. We are controlled by the rates tribunal. Other commercial firms, even the biggest of them, can put on a certain amount to cover the cost. I wish we could do that. An hon. Member opposite seems to dissent. I say that I wish we could do that, but we cannot recoup ourselves.
We have to remember that very small investors—holders of C stock and others—put a large sum into this undertaking, one which this House approved after weeks of consideration in Committee, and is the House entitled, without conference with the War Office and other authorities, to say that the best way in which a transport undertaking can help to defend the country is for these men to join the units of the Territorial Army? I, and no doubt other hon. Members, remember that in the last War the difficulty we had was to grab back from the Army men who were key men and should never have gone into the Army at all. The House will remember what a wicked loss was entailed by sending out highly skilled men who would have served their country far better by carrying on at their jobs. Tribunals were set up, but it was a great job to drag the men back.
Now we have quite a new situation, such as was never known before in this country, where the home front, inside the island, may be the most vital place. Only a fool must suppose that we can carry on without highly skilled men in transport. Are we justified, without further consultation, and without looking at this matter from a man-power point of view, to say that we are quite sure that the best thing is for individuals—they have no restriction placed on them as it is—to join any unit they like in the Territorial Army? They are men who are vitally important to the life of London, to the movement of food and supplies. Who will tell me that the skilled bus driver would not form one of a convoy to move people from point to point to

resist aerial attack? How can we move large sections of the civilian population from danger spots if all the drivers are in the Territorials? I am told that we could have women conductors. I daresay we could have women conductors, but I should like to see the hon. Member opposite let his sister go as a woman conductor when there is a rush of people all wanting to get away.

Captain A. Evans: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Baronet will recall that many women relatives of Members of this House played a very prominent part in that duty during the general strike.

Sir R. Glyn: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to say that I am casting no aspersions on any of his relatives, or anybody else's, who did their duty. I am saying that you have got a new situation which you never had before, where you have got a Home front, where you have got to exhibit a new position entirely. A speech was made by the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Admiralty, I think in November of the year before last, in which he said that the War Office were framing the regulations so that men who were employed in such occupations as made it difficult for them to attend the camp at the ordinary time would be provided with facilities for so doing.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that one of the peculiarities of the railway man is that he has to do his work to help other people to enjoy themselves, and who are the first to shout if you have not got an excursion train properly manned, and who are the first to complain if you do not run such trains. How many of the people going to the illuminations in Blackpool think of the difficulties of transport companies in arranging holidays for their men in the slack time before normal holidays? I think hon. Members would appreciate the difference it would make to railway men if only we would spread the holiday period of the ordinary population. The longer we spread it the better it will be for railway men to have a holiday. If you want to try to do something to help the training of men who are Territorials, is it not up to the War Office to provide certain facilities so that men can train outside the holiday period? Surely arrangements might be made for railway men to go to the depots or some alterna-


tive? We were even led to think that was possible, but I do not want anybody to think that in saying that I am making excuses, and I appreciate the point put by my hon. Friends who have put their names to the Amendment. I dare say I should have been with them in other circumstances some years ago, but there is a new situation arising, and before they throw out this Bill, or vote against it, I would beg them first of all carefully to consider what it is the Bill proposes to do, and how it is going to improve the traffic facilities of London.
Secondly, they feel strongly—and I quite agree with their feeling—about these extra facilities, but, boiled down, "extra facilities" means that the board should pay men to attend camp their normal pay as well as the men getting their Territorial pay. No possible obstruction is now put in the way of men who want to join. I have searched the records and can find that no component part of what now forms the London Passenger Transport organisation ever granted pay to men who attended camp. I, therefore, beg hon. Gentlemen that they will, at any rate, give the board this opportunity of consulting not only with the War Office, but with the Ministry of Transport and all other Government Departments, recognising that we have a new situation, and that a railway-man engaged in transportation is a valuable asset in the home front. Nobody wants to under-rate the duty of serving the country in time of emergency in any way possible, but I beg the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, and let us see whether the Government Departments and the board cannot devise something which will be for the benefit of the country in time of emergency.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Parker: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I oppose the Bill as the representative of a constituency in which there are very strong feelings about the London Passenger Transport Board, but I would like to dissociate myself from the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). Personally I cannot possibly agree, especially after hearing the arguments of the last speaker, with the idea that special facili-

ties ought to be given to enable people who are essential to national services in war time, to go away and leave their jobs. I want in opposing the Bill first of all to deal with general criticisms of the London Passenger Transport Board, then to deal with local criticisms in my own area, and finally to deal with Clause 48. I think it is a very great objection with many Members of this House that there is no possibility whatever of criticising the services of the London Passenger Transport Board except when a private Bill of this kind is before the House. If hon. Members put down questions about the services of the transport board to the Ministry of Transport, they do not get satisfactory answers. All that the Ministry does is to take the question to Number 55, Broadway, get a reply, and come back and read that out to the hon. Members of this House. Time and again the Minister of Transport has specifically stated that he has no powers whatever over the board, and I think it is generally recognised by hon. Members that the London Passenger Transport Board is an entirely irresponsible body so far as this House is concerned. In order to bear out the point I am making I would like to quote from a speech made by Mr. Frank Pick at the London School of Economics on 26th February, 1934:
The Minister of Transport has almost faded from the Act and the Board is neither responsible to the Ministry of Transport nor to the Railway Rates Tribunal. It may be responsible to Parliament, but Parliament must undo its work in order to restore its sovereignty. In the escape from capitalist control we have almost fallen into dictatorship.
I agree with the whole of that statement except the word "almost." There are various sops which have been created for the benefit of the public. There is the Railway Rates Tribunal. This body, however, has its hands practically tied until the standard rate of interest has been paid on the "C" stock and, therefore, appeals to the Railway Rates Triburnal, unless the board is making very large profits, are not a satisfactory way of redressing grievances. The London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee can make investigations about the services in the London area, but it has no power to compel the board to act. Then there is the London Passenger Transport Board's public relations officer, who has done a great deal of good in a small way, but despite what has been


done, there are many grievances that still require remedying. Various Traffic Advisory Committees have been set up around London, and one in the Romford Division has worked extraordinarily well in raising local grievances; but it is only an advisory committee and has no power to get major grievances redressed. I think that an expansion of these advisory committees would lead to many improvements in other areas around London, but such machinery alone is not enough. None, in fact, of these bodies really gets to the root of the problem, which is control over the policy of the board.
Personally, I believe that a number of changes are necessary in regard to relations between the board, this House and the Government, if the policy of the board is to be changed and to be more satisfactory. I believe that the policy of the board ought to be controlled by Parliament and that the Ministry of Transport ought to be responsible for appointing the board. It was an unfortunate change in the original Act by which the Minister lost his power to appoint members to the board. At the present time the board is appointed by trustees including the Chairman of the London County Council, a member of the London and Home Councils Advisory Committee, the chairman of the London Clearing Bankers, the President of the Law Society and the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Perhaps one or two of these know something about London transport. Personally I think it is necessary to restore to the Minister of Transport the right to appoint members of the board.
Then also I think it is essential that the accounts of the London Passenger Transport Board should be submitted yearly to this House and approved by this House. That would give an opportunity to Members of this House to voice their grievances against the board and to control its policy. With regard to all the various public corporations which have been set up, if they are not to degenerate into dictatorships quite independent of democratic control, it is essential that each should be responsible to a Minister of the House, and that their accounts should be discussed and approved yearly by this House. If the Minister then does not carry out the wishes of this House, he can be "sacked" by this House, and if he finds

that a particular board is not carrying out his general policy, then he can "sack" the members of that board. Only by having relations of this kind is it possible for this House to maintain democratic control over the various public boards, and if we are to get democratic control of the London Passenger Transport Board it seems essential to go back to the original proposal, and to see that the Minister of Transport is finally responsible for the board's policy in this House and should appoint the members of the board.
At the time the change was made hon. Members opposite argued that it was desirable to remove all political interference from this board, but that turns out to have been an argument in favour of creating an independent dictatorship free from democratic control. It has always seemed to me that it is the job of the intelligent politician to listen to the experts quarrelling and decide between them, and in this case it should be the job of the Minister of Transport to listen to the advice of the experts at 55, Broadway, and then decide the general policy to be adopted. I would like also to criticise the financial policy pursued in the creation of the board. There is a lack of elasticity about the Act as regards the creation of reserves. The board has to take each year separately, which makes continuity of policy difficult, and no reserve can be created apart from renewals and the Sinking Fund until 5½ per cent. has been paid on the "C" stock.
When the board was created overcompensation was given to the shareholders in various companies taken over by the board. They took 1928–30 as the basic years for working out compensation, and it was quite obvious when the depression followed that shareholders who got stock in the new concern did very well indeed. There was a rise in London Transport stocks received by debenture holders between the 24th April, 1931, and the 31st December, 1931, of nearly 25 per cent.—to be accurate 24.65 per cent.—which showed quite obviously the extent of the over-compensation at the time of the creation of the board. It seems to me that this over-capitalisation will somehow or other have to be got rid of if the board is to be put on a sound financial basis. At the present time the stock of the board cannot be


redeemed until various dates between 1965 and 2023, and that is a very long time hence. Stockholders have gained generally at the expense of the employés and the public, and it seems to me that either a Government guarantee of interest should be given and the rate of interest reduced, or else sanction should be given for an early conversion by the board.
I would like to deal now with various local grievances in my constituency. There is a very strong feeling throughout the whole of the Eastern suburbs of London that they do not get a square deal. The people there feel that the richer areas, North, South, and West, get better services in proportion to population than do the people in the Eastern areas, due to the fact that the other areas are wealthier and likely to offer a better return to the board. Many of us believe that it was unnecessary that plans should have been passed for building a tube right out beyond the Green Belt to Aldenham, when there are already many areas to the East of London, thickly populated, which have not got adequate services. It seems that better co-ordination in planning is required between the Transport Board and the local authorities when there are developments of new areas around London. In particular, in the Romford Division, there is great discontent because of the long delay with regard to the electrification of the North Eastern Railway out from Liverpool Street, and that is an essential part of the general scheme for serving that area.
There are also strong complaints with regard to the Green Line services. Recently there has been a rise in fares, especially in season-ticket fares, on the Green Line routes out from Aldgate to Romford and Upminster, and as a result of that I presented a petition to the Minister last December. As a result of the rise in fares, there has been great distress in those areas. It is argued by the Board that those particular fares, even after the increase, are still lower than the general standard for Green Line fares in all other services around London. That may be true, but I maintain that those particular services are in a different position from the ordinary Green Line services around London. They are much more in the nature of express bus services. The services are very frequent indeed, and they are felt by the people in that

district to be just a small compensation for the general inadequacy of the services covering the whole of that Eastern area. Many people have gone out to live in areas like Upminster, Hornchurch, and Romford, and have bought their own houses there, having first worked out their budgets carefully and estimated that they would have so much only to spend on fares travelling to and from their work in the City of London. Therefore, an increase in their fares affects them very much, especially when an increased assessment is also threatened. There is a very strong feeling indeed about this increase in the Green Line fares in that district, and I would like to ask the Board to reconsider their decision and to consider the point that the Green Line services in that district are in the nature rather of express bus services than ordinary Green Line services.
Finally, with regard to Clause 48, I agree largely with what the hon. and gallant Member opposite said. It seems to me that if the busmen of London are to have the facilities to which they are entitled, they should have these canteen facilities at terminal points, and I only hope that an attempt will be made to reach an agreement with the various local authorities and to prevent friction on the point, because if you are to have this Clause working smoothly, it is necessary to get the good will of the local authorities and their support. I therefore hope that an attempt will be made to reach an accommodation with them. For the reasons given, I oppose the Bill.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: I beg to second the Amendment.
I put my name to the Motion for the rejection of the Bill for several reasons. I wish to ventilate some of the difficulties in connection with the transport system in my own division. The hon. and gallant Member who opened the Debate will probably remember the several occasions on which I have raised questions connected with Bow and Bromley and Poplar. The Borough of Poplar is a very difficult one to deal with from the point of view of transport, because it is very narrow and very long, and we are bisected and dissected in all kinds of ways by railways and canals, and partly by the River Lea, which at any rate comes close up to us. During the whole


of the 50 odd years that I have lived in Bow we have never had a proper service throughout the length of the borough. People living in certain parts of the area find it extremely difficult, if they are at all incapacitated or if they are worn out with work, to get away, either to places of amusement or for other purposes, into the main road.
I will not follow my hon. Friend into a discussion of the constitution of the Transport Board, except to say that I think it is a very great pity that it is not possible to bring our grievances in connection with the board to some authority that can have a deciding voice instead of being compelled to take up the time of Parliament with what, after all, are local grievances. The questions connected with the future of the board will, I am sure, have to be dealt with much sooner than is anticipated, but I do not want to argue them to-night. I only want to explain that I would have preferred not to have taken up the time of the House on a subject which it will be very difficult for me to make clearly understood. It may be argued by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that my colleagues on the borough council have had ample opportunity to discuss our difficulties with the officers of the Transport Board. I agree that that is so, but when we have our discussions, although we are treated very courteously, we are bound to feel that we are before them as if we were before a tribunal that had the power to decide things and to tell us, "That is our decision, and that is an end of it." The last letter that we have received tells us, bluntly and plainly, that the appropriate officers have decided that, so far as they are concerned, the matter is ended. That is not good enough for our municipality or for the people in that area.
The question is the running of a set of buses over another route from the Lime-house side of the borough into Bow Road. There are two lines running, but each of them runs right on the edge of the borough. One goes down Burdett Road to East India Dock Road and through to the Isle of Dogs; another goes along St. Leonard's Road, which is on the extreme other side of the borough, leaving the whole of the centre untouched. We ask that there should be a detour, and that some of the buses that come down the

main Burdett Road should turn off to the centre into Campbell Road.
The argument put up against us was that there was not enough distance for people to travel to get on to the Burdett Road or on to the Bow Road. Whoever measured the map must have done so with his eyes out of focus. I can walk fairly well now, and I know that anybody who has to walk from the centre of Devons Road, near the Campbell Road into Bow Road, will find it quite a considerable walk; and so it is to walk the other way, into Burdett Road. It is sheer unadulterated nonsense for the chief officials of the London Passenger Transport Board to send that sort of communication to people who have to live in the district and meet the inhabitants who have appealed for those services. It was stated that the police might not allow the buses to come along the road because it was rather narrow. When I read that statement I thought that that was most nonsensical, because one of the roads along which a line of buses runs is very much narrower and much more dangerous than the route we suggested to the board. The route through Hackney Wick, Parnell Road and Jodrell Road into Wick Lane is an extremely difficult road for a motor bus to negotiate, but Campbell Road, Devons Road and another road whose name I just forget and which leads on to Burdett Road, are quite all right, except in one particular portion, and are almost straight for a large portion of the route. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to talk about the danger of negotiating traffic there.
I may be told that the proposed route will not pay. If so, I will call attention to the fact that, before the establishment of the London Passenger Transport Board, West Ham Corporation honeycombed their side streets with trams. That was long years ago. They put the trams down, knowing that they would not make money, and that they would probably have to make other portions of the system pay for those trams. The first consideration of the Corporation was the convenience of the citizens, and what they lost on the swings they were satisfied to gain upon the roundabouts. The same principle should apply in the case of the London Passenger Transport Board. Those who have travelled these streets know them


better than do officials who sit in an office near here, in The Broadway.
This matter is of concern not only to the people who live in the area but to a large number of nurses and social workers in various institutions. We have close by a huge hospital, and there are many social settlements in which we are glad that people come and work with us and offer us any help they can in lightening the lives of the people. Then there are numerous young people who go to the Evening Institute in Coborn Street, Bow Road. I have had three or four petitions from them, and I believe that the London Passenger Transport Board has had their petitions also. So have the Borough Council. It is not good enough for Mr. Pick to say these things. He is courtesy itself, but when he is most courteous he is most dangerous, because he does not intend to give way one bit. I do not look upon him as the master of London's passenger transport but as the servant of the people of London, and that is the only capacity in which I should think of him.
Years ago we had to deal with Lord Ashfield. Many of us think of him as a man whom we should have been glad to find as the head of a great municipal service in London if he had not been born with two silver or gold spoons in his mouth. I very much wish that those who have this business in hand just now had more of the spirit possessed by Lord Ashfield. If we had dealt with him we should not have had to plead during these months for this small concession. It is not a new line, and you could quite easily reach some of the buses along the route in order to give people the facilities which they need. That is all I want to say upon this issue. I want to turn to another question about which the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) had some correspondence with me when the board came to its agreement two or three years ago to carry out the improvements which they are carrying out now.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) in speaking about the way in which East London has been dealt with. I do not know how many years ago it was that I raised the question in the House and received sympathetic consideration from the hon. Member when he replied. It is time that a

tube were put down the East India Dock Road, notwithstanding all the difficulties which we are told are connected with that suggestion, and that we had a connection down that road to Barking. I invite anyone to go into that district during any evening or morning, and to go down East India Dock Road. You can go only by bus or tram. When the trolley buses get there, conditions will be a shade better; but as traffic increases it will hardly be better at all. It is only necessary to travel down there to discover how difficult it is as compared with Bow Road. Bow Road is eased because of the railway facilities; the number of people who go by tube is enormous. If the board were to run a tube down Commercial Road and East India Dock Road and through to Barking, and in any other direction on that side of East London between Bow Road and the river, I am sure they would find tremendous business.
We have a feeling in East London that the railway which is now being built to connect up with the electrified London and North Eastern is going to deal with a whole crowd of people who are not resident in East London. It is East London that I pleaded for in the first argument that I tried to put to the House, and I plead now for consideration for the people who live in Poplar, Canning Town and neighbouring districts. These are my main reasons for supporting the Amendment to reject the Bill. I could not in any circumstances vote for another Amendment on the Paper, and I should certainly vote against the Bill if that Amendment were carried and embodied in the Bill in any way. I think that those who work for the London Passenger Transport Board have a right to free choice as to whether they will join the Territorials or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have now!"] So long as we are agreed on that point, I do not mind. I also support whole-heartedly Clause 48, because I believe we ought to do all we can to give the drivers and conductors the very best conditions.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): Perhaps I might tell the right hon. Gentleman that the procedure proposed, with Mr. Speaker's sanction, is that the Instruction should be taken separately after the Second Reading, when the Bill has been read a Second time.

Mr. Lansbury: I am sorry; I did not know the arrangement.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not raising any objection to what the right hon. Gentleman said about it.

Mr. Lansbury: In conclusion, I desire—because I would not like anything I have said to be misunderstood—to pay my tribute of praise to the service generally of the London Passenger Transport Board. They have revolutionised travelling in London. I travel very often by omnibus or tram—mostly by omnibus—and thoroughly enjoy it. The men are civil and obliging, and I do not think they are paid anything like enough. I think the men who manipulate the omnibuses in the streets of Bow are geniuses in the manner in which they do their job. Instead of any of us wanting, because of our grievances against the board, to cut down any amenities, let us extend them as much as ever we can. I join also in saying that, while these men earn their money, we owe them something for their courtesy and good will. I see them dealing with old people and children getting on and off omnibuses, and it is a joy to see the manner in which they carry out their job. But I think that those who are at the centre, and have to do nothing but look at maps and draw up schedules and so on, might have a little more consideration for East London, and not be quite the grand seigneurs that they appear to be. I repeat that they are charming, but when they are charming they are extremely dangerous.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) was here to move the Second Reading of this Bill, on the back of which his name appears, but where are the two hon. Members for the City of London, whose names also appear on the Bill? Why are they not here to support it? It seems to me to be a case of
Three little nigger boys whose names were on the Bill,
Two ran away from it, and then there was one.
That one, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon, made a very courageous speech, and made the best case he could for the Bill, but he was also very frank about it. He described himself as the Devil's advocate. Now

neither I nor any of my hon. Friends who support me would have gone so far as to describe the London Passenger Transport Board as devils, but I can quite understand that my hon. and gallant Friend, having accepted a brief from that quarter, feels his position acutely, and I would like to offer him my respectful sympathy.
I support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, not because of anything that the Bill contains, but because of the attitude of London Transport to the Territorial Army. It may be asked, should Parliament reject a private Bill which is not objectionable in itself, merely because the conduct of the promoters is unsatisfactory in some way not connected at all with the Bill? My answer is that there are a number of precedents for this. Several private Bills have been thrown out by this House on Second Reading because of the way in which the promoters treated their employés, and as recently as 1925 the Bill of the London County Electricity Supply Company was rejected on Second Reading for no other reason than that the company was not on the King's Roll. The case for the rejection of this Bill to-day is far stronger than that, because the vital interests of the country are involved. I ask that the Bill be rejected because the London Passenger Transport Board is failing to bear its proper share of the burden of defence, and especially the defence of London, in which its property is situated and in which it carries on its business.
Here is a corporation which was brought into existence by Parliament, which enjoys a monopoly of public transport over an enormous area, and which has, morever, borrowed immense sums on the guarantee of the House of Commons. Surely we are entitled to insist, as the price of giving it further powers, that it should play its part in carrying out the declared policy of this House regarding national defence. Two years ago the Secretary of State for War appealed to all employers to grant extra leave with pay for the period of the Territorial camps, and that appeal has been repeated on several occasions, both by the Secretary of State for War and by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. Many large employers responded to that appeal. I have a long list here, which I am not going to weary the House by reading but am going to summarise briefly in this


way: The Government themselves have granted extra leave with pay, in addition to ordinary holidays, to all civil servants. Many local authorities, including the London County Council, under its present leadership, have done the same—the Westminster City Council has done it with such effect that the number of its employés in the Territorial Army rose from 16 to 62 within 18 months; the Metropolitan Water Board, many gas companies, many oil companies and a large number of engineering and other firms have done the same; and many of them, unlike London Transport, are not enjoying a sheltered monopoly, but are subject, on the contrary, to fierce competition.
London Transport are conspicuous among the large employers of London in giving no extra leave with pay, though in approved cases they give one week's extra leave without pay. I do not deny that the Board, in giving two weeks' ordinary holiday with pay, are good employers, though no better than most of the others I have mentioned; but the net effect is that if the London Transport man who is in the Territorial Army goes to camp, as he must, for a fortnight, and also wishes to go to the seaside with his wife and family—a not unreasonable desire—for a week or more, he has to spend the whole of that time at the seaside without pay. The result is that out of the 83,000 employés of London Transport, nearly all of whom are men, only 383 are members of the Territorial Army. I suggest that that is a miserable contribution to the defence of London. Is it conceivable that London Transport, with power stations and other properties peculiarly vulnerable to air attack, are unaware that London relies on Territorials, to man not only the infantry battalions, engineers, signals and other units of the Territorial Army, but also the whole of the anti-aircraft guns and searchlights around London, the four auxiliary air force squadrons in London, which form part of the 123 squadrons included in the Metropolitan Air Force, and, finally, the new squadrons which are about to start recruiting for the balloon barrage? These units of the Territorial Army and Air Force—and I might have added, the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve—include many technical

men, such as London Transport are well fitted to supply. If these units are not manned, what becomes of the defence of London?
How does this figure of 383 out of 83,000—or half of 1 per cent.—compare with that for other employers? Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that it compares extremely unfavourably. The Gas Light and Coke Company, with 24,000 employés, contribute 2 per cent. of their number—or four times the proportion of London Transport—to the Territorials. I have no other figures for London, but many employers can show much better figures even than that. We are entitled to ask that, if the Board could not set an example, at any rate they might follow the example of these others. But not only are they not making progress, they are actually going back, because, contrary to what my hon. and gallant Friend stated, I am informed that when London Transport took over the tramways some years ago the tramway employés were enjoying extra leave with pay for this purpose, and that privilege has been withdrawn. So, in spite of the enormous increase in the number of men needed for the defence of London, the Board are granting fewer facilities now than two or years ago.
What reasons have been given by the Board for their attitude on this matter? We heard something some time ago about the cost of giving extra leave with pay. I am glad to see that in the statement circulated to hon. Members yesterday by the Board, that argument has been dropped. It is quite true that the full dividend on the "C" stock has not been paid, but I am sure that if those stock-holders were called together none of them would object to the paltry sum which this concession would involve.

Mr. Fleming: Can the hon. Member give us any idea of what the sum would be?

Mr. Keeling: It would depend, of course, on the number of men affected, but I am told that a reasonable percentage, in comparison with other employers, for London Transport to contribute to the Territorial Army would be two per cent. That would be 1,660; and if they gave one or two weeks' pay the figure, as hon.


Members will see, works out at something between £6,000 and £12,000, according to the period. In the statement circulated yesterday, and also in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon, two other reasons were put forward by London Transport. The first was the difficulty of sparing men in time of war, and in the circular which the Board sent round they said that they are in touch with Government Departments regarding this matter. My hon. and gallant Friend read out a statement, which he was authorised by the Board to make, which said that they were willing to go on discussing the matter. I suggest that this is not convincing, it is not enough, and it is rather late. Of course the services must be maintained in time of war, of course many technical men are indispensable; but I challenge the Board and my hon. and gallant Friend who, I understand is going to reply, to answer two questions. Is it not a fact, as the hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans) suggested, that in the last War large numbers of underground, omnibus and tram employés were sent to the War and never fetched back? It is perfectly true that key men had to be brought back, but in the Amendment which a number of us have put down we expressly bar any suggestion that we want key men to join the Territorial Army.
My second question is: Have the Board ever been told by the War Office that only half of 1 per cent. can be spared in time of war? Under the Territorial Regulations, civil establishments under the War Office, such as Woolwich, are actually allowed to contribute 5 per cent. of their men to the Territorial Army, and it is fantastic to suggest that the War Office would discourage further recruitment of London Transport employés above half of 1 per cent. On the contrary, I am informed that ever since 1934 the War Office have been urging that extra facilities be given. When my hon. and gallant Friend speaks of maintaining the services in time of war he seems to forget that, if an effective Air Defence is not built up, no London transport may be left to function at all.
Finally, the Board say that there is difficulty about granting leave. Surely

that is common to every large organisation, and if other large corporations took this line very few recruits could be expected from them. The War Office has actually met this point by arranging that, if it is not convenient for a man to go to the summer camp, he can put in a fortnight instead, at some other time of the year more convenient to him, at a depôt and, therefore, that excuse is no longer open to London Transport. Of course, attendance at camp is better than attendance at a depôt, and it may be true that if more men attended Territorial camps some of the rest of the staff would have to take their leave either earlier or later in the year, but it is not unreasonable that their interests should give way to the country's need.
I hope that I have said enough to persuade the House that this Bill should be rejected. Lord Chancellor Bacon once gave this warning to the country:
Let no Estate expect to be great that is not aware upon any just occasion of arming.
The House is entitled to say to-day: Let no great public monopoly, enjoying powers entrusted to it by this House, expect to get further powers if it is not aware upon this just occasion of arming.

8.57 p.m.

Captain A. Evans: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) in his general condemnation of the London Passenger Transport Board. My only regret in that direction is that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) was not here to listen to the opinion expressed by one of his followers of his own little child. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that that finds general support among hon. Gentlemen who occupy those benches. I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) in urging the rejection of this Bill, and, in common with him, I sympathise with the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) in his very noble effort to put a very bad case in the best possible light. I do not think that I am being disrespectful when I suggest that my hon. and gallant Friend failed in his effort so to do. He agreed in his opening remarks that it was necessary for all public undertakings, and particulary that of the type of the London


Passenger Transport Board, to set an example so far as National Service is concerned, and, in this connection, it is not an exaggeration to say that the responsibility, as far as the national service of the Transport Board is concerned, does not end by providing efficient transport for the people of London. Having been granted certain powers by this House, it assumed a responsibility towards national problems as a whole—a responsibility which we do not feel that they are discharging as they should, by their attitude towards the Territorial Army at this particular time.
We understand from my hon. and gallant Friend that of the 82,000 employés of the board, 74,000 come within the category which could be described as highly specialised technical employés. It is difficult, I imagine, to know what the total employés were of those undertakings which went to make up the London Passenger Transport Board, as they existed at mobilisation in 1914. I should like to know what percentage of those employés came within the category to which I have just referred, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has pointed out, a large number of those employés volunteered for active service immediately and went to the Front, and, unfortunately, shared a fate which we all regret. But their places had to be filled, and it is common knowledge that at a time of national emergency such as we shall experience if war ever comes, the public will not expect to have the same efficiency which they enjoy in times of peace. At the same time, it is obvious that there are being carried out by the London Passenger Transport men employés essential duties which can be discharged with efficiency by women. Attention has already been drawn to the statement which was issued by the board in support of their Bill. In paragraph (5) I find the following words, which—they have already been referred to—frankly, I do not understand:
The board have for some time been in touch with the appropriate Government Departments on this and related matters and feel that they are best dealt with in that way.
Knowing that there was an Amendment on the Order Paper in the terms already

referred to, it is a matter for regret that the hon. and gallant Baronet did not tell us what that correspondence was, and what were the appropriate Government Departments with which the London Passenger Transport Board have been in communication. I believe that this is a misleading statement. It rather infers that correspondence has taken place, that negotiations are about to be commenced, and that the War Office and the other Departments are quite satisfied with the position. I suggest that that is far from the truth. I do not think that the War Office are satisfied with the position. I understand—and I shall be glad if my hon. Friend the representative of the War Office will correct me if I am wrong—that a short time ago certain undertakings were asked to furnish a return of indispensable members and employés who would come within indispensable trades. I should like to know whether that return was furnished to the War Office by the board, and, if so, what classes of employés were included in that category. Is it suggested that conductors of omnibuses come within the category of highly specialised technical employés, because I hardly think that that is a view which would be shared by the majority of the Members of this House. While it is a very efficient and important duty to collect the revenue of the board, I hardly feel that, furnished as they are with modern and up-to-date equipment, it can be regarded as a highly specialised form of employment.
If we accept the argument which has been submitted to the House by the hon. and gallant Baronet, surely, it is consistent to say that that argument could also be applied to railways of all kinds throughout the country and to practically every public undertaking. If war ever comes public undertakings of all kinds, in this country will have to make sacrifices in the same way as every other national service will have to make sacrifices. In the last war we had a most amazing experience. In the national emergency it was found possible to dispense with employés who previously were regarded as indispensable, and their places were taken by volunteers of both sexes.
There is another aspect of this case which has not been referred to so far, and that is the question of petrol supplies.


I wonder whether, if war were declared to-morrow, the Minister of Transport, in the interests of national efficiency, would find it necessary to curtail petrol supplies, not only for private use, but of transport undertakings of all kinds. It might be that in the case of a national emergency, whether we like it or not, transport services, not only in London, but in all our big industrial cities, would be cut down by perhaps, 50 per cent. as a safeguard, and perhaps as a necessity. If that is the case, then the London Passenger Transport Board would be able to release a far greater number of what they are pleased to term highly specialised technical employés. I suggest that there is not the slightest doubt that in this particular case somebody is being very obstinate. It is of paramount importance, if the Secretary of State for War is to meet with the success he deserves in his recruiting efforts, that important and responsible bodies like the board and all other organisations should give their active assistance and say, "Here is the maximum number of men we can raise in time of war. We will do everything in our power to encourage their recruitment for national service, and we will not confine ourselves to not refusing an application, but will make up our minds that we are prepared to make a contribution, not only in the interests of our own company but in the interests of national defence, and the moral of the nation as a whole."

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: The discussion this evening has taken the form, first, of complaints against the methods adopted by the London Passenger Transport Board so far as their services to the community are concerned. While it may be good sense for a board to be set up to which these grievances might be taken, nevertheless, it is hardly fair to expect hon. Members from all parts of the country to be the judges as to what is fit and proper in regard to the services of London, and it seems to me that there should be some machinery whereby these matters can be properly discussed instead of it being a matter for barter across the Floor of the House as to whether the Bill on its merits should go through. In the second place, various local authorities are saying that the men should have proper facilities for food. The board suffered a long strike at the Coronation period. I do not pro-

pose to go into the merits of that strike, or to discuss whether the time was opportune or not, but the fact remains that the men felt they had a real grievance and that their health was suffering by the type of service they were called upon to do. In the discussions later on it was revealed that there were no proper facilities for the men to get rest and recreation or to perform other functions in connection with their daily life. In Clause 48 of the Bill the board say they are prepared to offer proper facilities.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member was in during the early part of the Debate when I mentioned that Clause 48 would be open for debate on the Instruction after the Second Reading had been carried.

Mr. Smith: I bow to your Ruling. The next point is the question of the Territorial Forces. I happen to know, as one who was directly associated with the old omnibus company, that during the last War the men and their women did yeoman service; and would undoubtedly do it again. It is not fair to compare the employés and the members of this board with any undertaking in the country. The board has to cover an area of 25 miles from Charing Cross and to move a population of 11,000,000, which is continually changing owing to the housing developments taking place in all parts of London. In the event of war taking place, I imagine that one of the first things that will be done will be to commandeer, as they did in the last War, a large number of buses and the necessary staff to run them. I cannot understand hon. Members waxing wrath with a concern which they know will have to find facilities in time of war for moving the great population of London to and from their work. That is one of the first duties of the board. Therefore, to say that the board are putting obstacles in the way of men joining the Territorial Force, and that this is militating against recruitment is an unfair suggestion for any hon. Member to make. I should like to ask the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) how he voted on the question of holidays with pay when it was brought forward from this side of the House?

Mr. Keeling: I have already said that the London Passenger Transport Board give a fortnight's holiday with pay.

Mr. Smith: That is not my point. I want to know why this body of 40,000 men are to be chosen willy-nilly by the hon. Member and compelled to join the Territorial Force, when other people are to go free?

Mr. Keeling: I made no suggestion of that sort.

Mr. Smith: The hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff South (Captain A. Evans) said that every form of encouragement should be used to get the men into the Territorial Force. What form of economic pressure is to be brought upon these men? Let me put another proposition to the hon. Member for Twickenham. How many of the stores which he cited are giving facilities for their men to join the Territorial Forces? How many are giving a fortnight's holiday with pay and also a fortnight's holiday to go to camp?

Mr. Keeling: To the best of my knowledge, the majority of them.

Mr. Smith: The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff challenged representatives of the board to produce evidence as to the various Government Departments with whom they had been in negotiation. Surely, it is equally fair for me to ask that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) should not generalise about this matter, but should give us the facts.

Mr. Keeling: I am prepared to give the facts, and I can give some of them now. Government Departments give a large amount of leave for ordinary holidays, and they also give an extra fortnight's leave with pay for attendance at a Territorial camp to any members of the staff who get not more than 18 days ordinary leave. The Middlesex County Council, the London County Council, the Bank of England, the Westminster City Council, Imperial Chemical Industries, Shell Mex—I do not think I need name any more—give at least a fortnight's holiday with pay, and in addition an extra fortnight with pay for attending Territorial Army camps.

Mr. Smith: I beg to differ. With regard to the Government Departments, does the hon. Member suggest that if the same facilities were granted by the board, the board would have the same means of getting the revenue with which to pay the cost? The mere expedient of raising

more revenue by the Government meets the cost with regard to Civil Servants, but the board have to go before various tribunals if they want to raise fares. Therefore, I say that it is not fair for hon. Members to pick out one concern which undoubtedly will be an important war unit, if war takes place. The hon. and gallant Member for South Cardiff said, "Let us assume that a 50 per cent. reduction in petrol supplies will be effected in the event of war." Of course, we should expect that immediately. I can tell him that in the last War, the whole of the petrol supplies were deducted, and I remember that Lord Ashfield discussed with me now how he was going to "put up" with white paraffin—and when he had got that, 50 per cent. of it was taken away. There is no question that there will be a curtailment of the service as far as petrol is concerned, but there will also be a curtailment in the sense that in the event of war, traffic which is not necessary will be removed. The one will counter-balance the other. One hon. Member referred to the work that women would do in a war. Women rendered admirable services as conductors during the last War; but in a future war, with air-raid precautions, with the streets darkened, the signals gone, and a panicky population, do hon. Members think that it will not be necessary to have men on the buses? As far as London is concerned, the last War was play compared with what the next one will be.

Captain A. Evans: Surely, the hon. Member will admit that if he carries that argument to its logical conclusion, everybody will be a civilian and there will be nobody in the Army.

Mr. Smith: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman carries his argument to its logical conclusion, everybody will be a soldier and there will be nobody to do any work.

Mr. Keeling: Is not the hon. Member aware that the establishment of the Territorial Army is limited to about 200,000 men?

Mr. Smith: I am equally aware that there are 80,000 men employed by the London Passenger Transport Board, and that the hon. Member seems to have made a dead set against that body. I speak for the men employed in that institution. I have been with those men ever since I


first organised them 25 years ago, and it has taken 25 years for us to get anything like reasonable holiday conditions. It was only last year that we were successful in getting a fortnight's holiday with pay for them. The service of the London Passenger Transport Board is a mobile and ubiquitous one; it is a service which has to meet varying conditions at all times. For the operating staff in London, holidays cover eight months in the year, and I believe I am right in saying that on the Green Line service, they have to get holidays at any time during the year.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: As the hon. Member knows what is in the minds of the employés will he inform the House why it is that they are not joining the Territorial Army?

Mr. Smith: If a survey could be made of the number of people in the employment of the board who have been in the Service or who are on the Reserve, there would be a very different story told in the House about only 381 who happen to be in the Territorial Forces. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that I know what is in the minds of the men. I can tell him, knowing the minds of the men, that if they get it into their heads that the House is trying to force their employers to bring economic pressure to bear upon them to join the Territorial Army, it will be a very bad thing for the Territorial Army. The board places no obstacle in the way of a volunteer if he wants to use his holiday in this way; but when hon. Members come to the House and say that a Bill which is necessary for the development of the services which the board render to the people should be rejected for these reasons, I think they are taking a mean advantage of the House. I say that frankly.
Hon. Members who show such assiduity in getting recruits for the Territorial Army will no doubt be equally assiduous in getting soldiers, sailors and airmen; but if they believe in their policy, it is not right that they should pick out one undertaking; rather, they should face the issue boldly and tell us in the House that they want conscription. They have not the courage to do that. If conscription were brought in, there would not be an hon. Member sitting on the benches opposite after the next election. Hon. Members opposite know that. The Prime Minister has pledged himself not to bring any pres-

sure, economic or otherwise, upon men to join the Regular Army. Nobody knows that better than the Prime Minister himself. I remember the right hon. Gentleman getting his first official appointment in London, when he came here as Minister for National Service. I believe I was the first man who met him in that position, and the question which arose then was not that of getting people into the Army, but of how many he could release so that efficient services could be carried on by the London omnibuses. That may surprise hon. Members, but it is a true statement. The arguments which have been adduced against the board on the question of its Territorial policy should not be allowed to secure the rejection of this Bill. This question is not one which arises in the Bill, and the Bill should be allowed to go to the Committee. I hope that all my hon. Friends will join with me in opposing the Motion for the rejection of the Bill.

9.24 p.m.

Major Whiteley: I think that the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith), in his very interesting spech, allowed his enthusiasm to run away with him a little, for he completely distorted the remarks which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) with regard to the Territorial Army. No one has ever suggested, and no one is every likely to suggest, that pressure should be brought to bear on anyone.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: What is meant by the remark about giving the necessary encouragement?

Major Whiteley: That is a very different matter. Encouragement and pressure are two different things. No one would dream of suggesting that key men, essential men who will be needed in time of war or in time of emergency, should, in peace time, be taken away and trained as Territorial soldiers. The hon. Baronet who moved the Second Reading of this Bill in his very lucid speech rather cleverly confused the issue by speaking as if it were the intention of hon. Members to encourage the enlistment of key men. That is not the case. All that some of us desire—I hope the House desires—is that reasonable encouragement should be given to men who want to join the Territorial Army and who can be spared to do so, and, when they have joined (and this includes men who may have enlisted


already and who may be key men), that they should be given every assistance to attend camp and to carry out their obligations. We are told in the document which has been circulated to hon. Members that this is what is done:
The Board places no obstacle in the way of those not required for essential public service enlisting if they so wish.
No one can take exception to that as far as it goes, but there is all the difference in the world between placing no obstacle and giving reasonable encouragement.
We are told that if the Second Reading of this Bill is rejected it will cause the most undesirable delay, and that this very essential work, which everyone agrees is necessary, will as a result be held up. I think that is unfortunate, but it happens that it is the only way in which hon. Members can bring home to this and similar undertakings their views on this subject. Sorry as I should be to feel that the public were going to suffer as the result of the rejection of the Bill, I feel that the eventual result may be a good one, and that in future, when Bills of this sort are brought forward by this or similar undertakings, they will see that they come here with clean hands in the matter of national defence. The country as a whole is making a tremendous effort for rearmament and national defence, and great statutory undertakings such as the London Passenger Transport Board—and there are others in the same position—will, I think, do well to understand that when they come to this House for increased facilities their Bills will be carefully examined in order to ensure that they are doing what they can to assist the country to put its defences in order.
Something has been said on the question of holidays with pay. The London Passenger Transport Board assert that they give a fortnight's holiday with pay, and in addition a week's holiday without pay for members of the Territorial Army; but apparently this fortnight's holiday with pay does not apply to all their employés—I wish it did. We have been given no figures to indicate the proportion of these three hundred odd men in the Territorial Army who are receiving a fortnight's holiday with pay. Not long ago a gentleman who is very well known in this country and in industry, Lord Cadman, was speaking in my village at the opening of a Territorial drill hall, and he said

that he thought it was desirable that all undertakings which could do so should provide not only holidays with pay, but special leave with pay in addition, to enable men to go to Territorial camp. I feel very strongly that that must come in time, and that, wherever possible, a lead should be given by these great statutory undertakings in order to encourage smaller undertakings to follow their example.
I do not think that we are asking anything unreasonable of the London Passenger Transport Board. We do not suggest that there should be any compulsion. We are perfectly well aware, being, I trust, reasonable men, that it would be folly to encourage the enlistment of men whose services in their present work are vitally esential in time of emergency. The board have said that they are ready to enter into negotiations with the appropriate Government Department. Well, it appears that even the threat of the rejection of their Bill has had some effect, and it is high time that they did enter into those negotiations. I should have wished that those negotiations with the appropriate Department—I imagine, the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence—had been in full swing long before this, not only in the case of this particular undertaking but of other similar ones. We hope that by rejecting the Second Reading of this Bill we shall ensure in the future that large undertakings fully understand their responsibility towards the national defence, and that they will take reasonable action, and no more, to carry out the obligations which we expect the ordinary private citizen to do.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I want to speak in this Debate as one who joined the old Volunteers 40 years ago, and therefore I may claim to speak in this matter with some knowledge of the feelings of the rank and file of the present Territorial Army, for when the War came I re-enlisted in the Territorial Army. I am bound to say that, from my knowledge of the views of the ordinary workman who served in the Territorial Army, no greater disservice has been done to the recruitment of that Army than the speeches we have listened to to-night from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Buckinghamshire (Major Whiteley) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Cardiff (Captain Evans). On every local autho-


rity on which I have served I have always stood for the principle that men, if they are willing to give up their time, should receive from the local authority leave with pay for attendance at the Territorial camp, but when that has been done I think there is no further responsibility towards the men. It has been suggested to-night, however, that that is not sufficient, and that there should be actual encouragement by the employer. I believe that if, as the result of the negotiations with the War Office, the London Passenger Transport Board find themselves able to increase the number of men who can be recruited for the Territorial service, this will be regarded by the men with a suspicion which would not have existed had this Debate not taken place.
I regard the speeches of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) and of the two other hon. Members I have mentioned, in the light of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) as a very serious attack on the Government, because the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon has made it quite plain that conversations are proceeding between the board and the War Office on this matter. For a few minutes we had the pleasure of seeing the Financial Secretary to the War Office here this evening, and I was anticipating that he would take part in the Debate and tell us what the position was with regard to those conversations.
All through the great public utility undertakings there is the feeling of uncertainty which the hon. Member for Abingdon referred to as existing in the minds of the London Passenger Transport Board. Gas, water, electricity or transport undertakings have not had the slightest indication from the Government of the policy which is to be pursued with regard to their staffs in the event of an emergency. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) speaking from his great experience, alluded to the way in which the London buses were used for the conveyance of troops on the occasion of the last War—I suppose I should say the latest, rather than the last. Those buses were used over many routes in France from the rest billets to near the front line. I am told that 1,360 buses were taken over from the London General Omnibus Company for that purpose and those of us who were in France during the War know the ser-

vice which the drivers of those vehicles rendered. One feels certain that, in the event of any future mobilisation of the forces, the same kind of service will be required.
Surely it is time the Government gave some indication to those responsible for public utilities of the extent to which they will be expected to contribute to whatever forces may be mobilised as auxiliaries. If that information were available, I believe a great many of the problems mentioned by hon. Members might be solved—but for the speeches of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham and the hon. and gallant Member for Cardiff, South—in a way that would meet with general approbation. I sincerely hope that the threat made by the hon. Member for Buckingham that all public utility Bills will in future be examined to see whether or not some arrangement acceptable to him has been made between the directors and the employés with regard to Territorial Army service, will not be carried into effect. If it were thought that employers who from time to time have to come to this House for Bills were to be examined to see what percentage of their employés was in the Territorial Army, then the whole advantage of the voluntary character of the Territorial Army would be destroyed. I can only hope that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) will not be pressed to a Division.

Mr. Keeling: It will not be called.

Mr. Ede: We have been told, however, that a Division will be taken on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker). Having had this discussion, and having heard what appeared to be the complete answer of the hon. Member for Abingdon on the present position of the board and the difficulties which exist, as we all know, owing to the delay of the Government in tackling this issue of man-power, I hope that no Division will take place and that we shall be able to proceed with the Second Reading and the consideration of the Instruction.

9.40 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): It may be convenient if I intervene at this stage, as I understand that another hon. Member proposes to


wind up on behalf of the board. In spite of the comparative heat which has been engendered on this question of Territorial Army recruiting, I am not sure that some form of agreement may not yet be reached. This is an occasion on which hon. Members exercise their right to raise grievances. In the past, most of the points raised have been points of detail which have been taken into consideration by the board. On this occasion, in addition to comparatively detailed points, we have had raised a matter of wider implications. I propose to deal first with the smaller points, and then to say something on the question of Territorial Army recruiting.
The House will, no doubt, remember that under the London Passenger Transport Board Act of 1933 the powers of the Minister of Transport are closely circumscribed. My right hon. Friend may use his powers of persuasion to get the board to adopt a certain course, but he cannot order the board to do so. It was the deliberate decision of this House that jurisdiction in questions of charges and facilities should be vested, not in the Minister but in the Railway Rates Tribunal. I understand that it would be out of order on this Bill to debate the question of whether the Minister should appoint the board or whether Members of Parliament should be members of the board. I would, however, remind hon. Members opposite that the question of any form of political control was debated in 1933, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) brought in his Bill in 1931.
May I deal now with three points of detail? The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) raised the question of Green Line fares. I would remind him that under Section 29 of the 1933 Act a local authority may apply to the Railway Rates Tribunal for the adjustment of fares or the modification of conditions applicable to such fares. In this case as Parliament has given that right of appeal the Minister cannot interfere, and it is for the local authority to make use of the machinery provided. It has not so far done so and the hon. Member for Romford may like to take up that point with the local authority. Very much the same point was raised by the right hon. Gentleman

the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) as regards bus and tube services at Bow. Under Section 59 of the Act the local authority can approach the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee who may take certain action, or under Section 30 they may appeal to the Railway Rates Tribunal. Whether that is a satisfactory form of appeal or not is not for me to decide.

Mr. Lansbury: Has either of those authorities the power to compel the board to do what we want them to do?

Captain Hudson: They have certain powers under the Act but what I was saying was that the Minister himself has no powers. Certain forms of appeals have been devised under the Act and until the machinery created by the House has been brought into action, it is difficult to see how the Minister can do anything.

Mr. Lansbury: I did not raise the matter because I thought that the Minister could do anything. I happen to know how that Measure was drafted and how the House left it—so that the Minister could not have power to do anything. I wanted to show the absurdity of having to waste the time of Parliament in dealing with a purely local matter when there ought to be one authority to which we could go to have it settled, while avoiding the trouble and cost of going to two authorities.

Captain Hudson: I think we shall have to leave the detailed point there. The hon. Member for Romford raised the question of the accounts. The accounts of the board are presented in a form and compiled in a manner prescribed by the Minister. They are published, and the board is also required to make to the Minister an annual report which must be laid before Parliament. I am assured that a full report is made from year to year. That is, perhaps, not known to the hon. Member for Romford. I will say what I have to say about Clause 48 in the Debate which will take place on the Instruction.
As regards the question of Territorial Army recruiting, I must say definitely that I do not think the board have acted well in this matter. My Minister yesterday notified the board that he found himself unable to support the attitude of the board on this issue, but, in reply, he got no offer whatever of conciliation or


of an effort to meet the point of view which is obviously felt by a large number of Members. The work which the board would have to perform in time of war is, of course, being considered seriously by my Department. We can, however, see no reason why the board should not give more encouragement to men to join the Territorial Army, and we feel that, if this led to larger numbers of men joining, that circumstance would not prejudice the usefulness of the board's undertakings in time of war. In the course of the Debate it has appeared that what my hon. Friend's Amendment asks for is time off with pay, as against time off without pay. I really cannot see, if we look at this thing in a judicial manner, that that can be called undesirable pressure. The War Office has been mentioned once or twice; they entirely agree with the attitude that my Minister has taken up.
On the other hand, I tell the House frankly that my Ministry would be very sorry to lose this Bill, which contains useful provisions for the improvement of London transport. There is work in the Bill to the value of £287,800. We must also consider that the rejection of the Bill will not punish the board so much as the citizens of London. In these circumstances, I have tried to see whether there is any method by which we can keep the Bill and, at the same time, let the board know that a large number of Members of the House—I think probably a majority—take a serious view of the matter. I suggest that the House might consider whether they will not allow the Bill a Second Reading to-night, while reserving, as every Member is entitled to do, their right to reject it, if they wish, on Third Reading. In the meantime, the board will have the opportunity of studying the speeches which have been made in this Debate and my Minister will ask the board's chairman to confer with him to see whether he cannot suggest some arrangement to meet the wishes of the House.
While the question of the Territorial Army would not be debatable on Third Reading, I understand that I should probably be able to inform the House of the result of the proposed conference. I would remind the House that the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) said that the board were ready to discuss this matter with the ap-

propriate Government Department. Therefore, the suggestion which I make would appear to be satisfactory to the board, and I hope it will be satisfactory to the House. By adopting this method it may be possible to save this useful Bill, while getting agreement on a matter about which undoubtedly large numbers of Members take a serious view. This is a matter for the House itself to decide, for it is a private Bill, but I make the suggestion in the hope that in this rather difficult position it may prove to be a possible solution.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Walkden: I would ask the House not to be so unwise as to reject this valuable Measure on the grounds put forward by hon. Members opposite in regard to recruitment for the Territorial Army. The area covered by the Transport Board represents a quarter of the population of the country, and it would be amazing if an action of this kind were taken by the House of Commons. The other grievances that have been ventilated will not be remedied by the rejection of the Bill. Neither the constitution of the board nor the representation of the board could be altered by its rejection. The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) would agree with me that that is not the way to get the original Act of 1933 amended. These are relatively trivial matters to the greater question that emerged in the later stages of the Debate in the deplorable speeches in which hon. Gentlemen opposite were in favour of encouraging this great public board to take steps in the matter of recruitment. If those speeches were deplorable, the speech delivered on behalf of the Government was far more deplorable. If that encouragement is given because of the threat to reject the Bill, the results will be exceedingly disastrous. The principle that has prevailed so far, and for which we understood the Government stood, was that recruitment, whether for the Territorials or for the Regular Army, was to be absolutely voluntary on the part of the recruit and that there should be no pressure put on him by anybody, either employer or Government, and that no pressure should be put on employers to take special measures to induce men to join the Forces.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not appreciated the excellent documents we have had on the question of granting


further leave with pay. That can be given only at the expense of the other men, those who are too old to go into the Forces and those who have not joined. The House in the very hard financial terms on which it insisted in the Act of 1933 has chained up the board to the payment of very high rates of interest, amounting to 5 per cent. and 4½ per cent., when the rate on public money is 3 per cent. and 3¼ per cent. Further, the board have had put upon them the obligation to fatten up the dividend on the "C" stock to give a higher yield than is given by any of the railway companies' stocks or any comparable stocks in the country, and any further expense which is put upon the board is bound to have an adverse effect on the staff. Bad blood will be created throughout that body of very intelligent men: there are among the employés of the Transport Board men whose attainments and knowledge of affairs equal those of any of us in this House and not only can they think but they can take action. I warn hon. Members that the attitude of mind displayed to-night in this House is most deplorable, and I hope that it will be modified before the Bill is disposed of.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: The hon. Member for South Bristol (Mr. Walkden) in common with a number of hon. Members on his side of the House, appears to approach this question of Territorial service under the misapprehension that there is no difference between encouraging men to do a thing and compelling them to do it. I put it to the House that there is all the difference in the world between driving one of us out of this Chamber with sticks and encouraging one to go out by offering one a drink. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has intervened with a suggestion which requires very careful consideration. On the one hand he says quite clearly that he is not satisfied with the attitude taken up by the board, but, on the other hand, he is conscious of the value of the Bill, and speaking as a Minister of his Department he is anxious that the Bill should not be lost. He suggests that the difficulty might be reconciled by the House granting the Bill a Second Reading on the understanding that the transport board would then meet with the Departments concerned, and that unless the board had granted suitable

facilities to Territorials by the time the Third Reading was reached the House would reserve its right to reject the Bill at that stage.
At first sight that is an attractive suggestion, but I do not feel at present that I could recommend those of us who are anxious to see Territorials who are employés of the London Passenger Transport Board receiving pay and an extra holiday to attend camp to accept the Minister's suggestion. Is there very much in the hope that the board will see reason now when they have not seen it in the past? This controversy has not grown up overnight, but has been going on for fully 18 months. All the arguments which the board are using to-day are the same arguments as they were using 18 months ago. No progress has been made, and I see no reason to hope that the board should take a more helpful attitude after the Second Reading of this Bill has been passed than they do now. We are told that they will get into touch with the War Office. Surely we know that they have been in touch with the War Office already. We have that information in the circular issued by the board yesterday. And surely we know that they put forward no acceptable proposals to the War Office. If their proposals had been acceptable my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) would have mentioned them to us. We know, further, that not only are the proposals not acceptable to the War Office—the War Office might ask more than we do—but that in the view of the board those proposals would not be acceptable to this House, because otherwise we should have had them put before us.
We are invited to sacrifice our chance to resist this Bill on Second Reading in the hope that after Second Reading the board will be more reasonable. I wonder whether that is likely to be so. Everybody with knowledge of the procedure of this House knows that the fate of a Bill hangs on Second Reading. Once a Bill gets through Second Reading it is very difficult indeed, I will not say to "work up" but to organise serious opposition to it, however strongly it may be felt. People will say to you, "I quite agree with your point of view, but you had your chance on Second Reading and you got beaten—or you ran away—and now you will have to put up with it."


Another argument is, "The Bill was given a Second Reading and went upstairs to Committee, many days—nine, 10, 11 or 16 days—have been spent on it in Committee, and surely we are not going to throw it away after all that work has been done on it." Or else we get the purely practical point of view of the Whips' office: "If you stage a Debate against the Third Reading of the Bill we shall lose another Parliamentary day," and they use their influence to persuade one not to oppose the Third Reading. I am pretty young in experience of this House, but if hon. Members who have been here a long time will cast their minds back they will not, I think, recall many cases where even a private Bill which has been given a Second Reading and has got throught its Committee stage has been thrown out on Third Reading.
For that reason I am afraid I cannot agree to the suggestion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. He made it perfectly clear that he was intervening in a Debate upon a private Bill, that the Government Whips were not on, and that Members would have complete liberty to vote as they think right without any thought that they will be voting against the Government. I came to the House frankly determined to vote against the Bill, and though I have considered the words of the Parliamentary Secretary they have not persuaded me to alter my mind. I have great personal sympathy with everything said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon, and I think he put his case very well, but it was not an easy case to put, and I do not honestly believe that he relished his task. I understand that the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) will also put the point of view of the London Passenger Transport Board. After all, however, I think it will be found that the overwhelming majority of Government supporters share the view which I have that little though we may like to oppose the Bill—not because of what it contains, but because of an allied subject—yet this is the only means we have in this House of bringing to the attention of the London Passenger Transport Board the view we take of their failure to make adequate provision for employés of theirs who want to serve their country as Territorials.
I must not labour too long the arguments which were put, because they were present so amply in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), but it is to my mind little short of a disgrace that this great monopoly-holding statutory corporation, with 82,000 men working under them, should be able to let only 383 men join the Territorials. I felt almost as much disappointed with those figures as with the arguments that were put forward by the board. In all the earlier stages of this controversy they attached great importance to the question of expense. Well, to give a week's pay to these 383 men, who are at present Territorials, assuming that they are getting about £4 a week, will cost the board something in the neighbourhood of £1,500 a year, and if we found that the effect of granting pay to join this extra holiday would increase the number of the Territorials under the Trans-port Board to the same percentage as we find under more or less kindred undertakings—to what, I think, is the not unreasonable percentage of 2 per cent. instead of a ½ per cent.—that would mean that the number of Territorials would be about 1,500 or 1,600, and if you had to pay other people to take their place for this one week, again at the rate of £4 a week, the cost would be only something in the neighbourhood of £6,000, and surely that is not a very serious item to a corporation whose general wage bill comes to something over £16,000,000 a year. Surely not.
That brings us to the argument that so many of these men are working on specialised jobs that a temporary staff could not do the job for them, and it would be necessary to enlarge the regular and permanent staff. I would like to give two answers. First, we are only asking that these facilities should be granted to men not essential in time of war, and secondly, if the encouragement of a second week's holiday with pay did succeed, as I suggest it might, in multiplying by four times the number of Territorials, bringing it up to 2 per cent. of the staff, surely there must be some means, either within the staff itself or from outside sources, by which the board could make good a deficiency of 2 per cent. if that deficiency had to be made good at all. But the board could run with 98 per cent. of its staff. You get


many more than 2 per cent. away for holidays at one time. The question of holidays might be met very easily by other members of the staff taking their holidays at different times from the men who wanted to go to the Territorial camp.
The hon. Member who represents the employés of the Transport Board has left the House at the moment—he probably knows what the thoughts of the Transport Board's men are—but I would say for those employés of the Transport Board that surely they would not begrudge having their holidays either a week earlier or a week later if thereby they could enable one of their colleagues to serve his country by joining the Territorials. I do not know that it is necessary for all these men to be away at one time. I do not think there is any reason why one should expect all the men to join the same Territorial unit, and in that case I think they might go to camp at different times and, further, the War Office would be perfectly open to allow some such arrangement as for a man to do an attachment at some other time and not during the rush holiday period.
The last argument that has been used by the board is that all their employés will be essential if war breaks out, but honestly I cannot accept that argument seriously, and it is only non-essential men we are asking for. There are innumerable conductors and ticket collectors—jobs that could and would perfectly well be done by women or older men. Nobody who remembers the last war forgets how efficiently those jobs were then filled by those women. I do not want to prolong the Debate, but I feel that on this point we in this House would be wrong to give to any body increased powers unless we were satisfied that that body appreciated the importance of national Defence.

Mr. Kelly: Would you apply that to wages, too?

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: The particular defence we are thinking of by London Territorials is defence against the air, and what use is the London Passenger Transport Board going to be if we cannot defend London from the air? Personally, I should find it impossible to hope for a Bill giving this board greater powers unless they show a realisation of

their responsibility, and I would put it to other Members in this House that if the defence of the country falls upon us in this House we should support the Governvent in every defence. We should support the Government, encourage people to join the Territorials, and I feel that we should do something more than encourage men to join the Territorials. I think we should do what we can to see to it that men who join the Territorials are given fair play and generous treatment by their employers.

Mr. Parker: On a point of Order. I should like to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

10.13 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I feel it a very great privilege that I should be able to say a word on behalf of the board, because I feel in a way that I am one of those to whom it is due that many, many years ago the board came into being at all. If you remember, during a Government of a Conservative nature there was inquiry after inquiry in different parts of London as to what would be the best way of getting through the pool, and the answer always came down that there must be a co-ordination of traffic, and it was due to those recommendations that finally the general scheme was evolved, that the pooling of all resources was envisaged, and it was eventually born, so to speak, with a Labour Minister of Transport as its father, but it was weaned by a Conservative Government, and the progeny as you see it now is not really loved by anybody. It is not quite the Socialist Measure that the Socialists like, and from these benches it has always been looked upon as something we had to put through against our wishes; but still we have got to admit, I think, that the board, qua board, has been a great success. But nobody would go back to competitive transport in London if he knew anything about it at all. That is the position as we find it to-day.
The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill brought to our notice the fact that he could not arraign the Minister of Transport for some of the misdeeds of the board. That was a pity from his point of view, but from the point of view of the time of the House, we should have questions addressed to the Minister of


Transport most of the afternoon if that were the case. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) said that he would like another form of authority before whom he could put his complaints with regard to his own locality. I have tried to get from the "powers that be" sympathetic consideration about a service down Devons Road, but in the short time that I have had, and in spite of my right hon. Friend's eloquence, I am unable to tell him that there will be that service down that road. I am sorry about that, but, on the other hand, I can assure him that there are many other services that we should like to have very much, although I agree that it is very tiresome to feel that when you are representing a great authority a man in the capacity of the ruler of the Transport Board can say "No" to you, and that is the final word. I feel very great sympathy with him, but I would suggest that possibly some local money might be spent in raising that machinery which my right hon. Friend envisaged in trying to get perhaps his own point of view accepted. That would be an interesting experiment, something which has not been done yet, and I hope it would come to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Lansbury: You lend us the money.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill was not, I think, seriously wanting it, because he made a peroration in which he pleaded with the House to clear up Clause 48 and not to wreck the Bill. He was using this private Bill as we all use such Bills, and we have had a very enjoyable evening. We all use them, like Railway Bills, to air our grievances about night sleepers, bad trains, and so on. I will now pass to a rather more serious side, and that is the question of the Territorials. I think the point has not been made enough that the fact that the board gives two weeks' holiday with pay is not a discouragement to anybody joining the Territorials. If anybody during those two weeks wishes to spend one week with the Territorials, he can do so. There is no objection on the part of the board to that, but to ask that, in addition to the fortnight, there should be another week with pay for joining the Territorials, is, I think, to ask a good deal, unless it becomes general.
The whole question has been cleared up by the Minister in his speech to-night, although I did not approve of what he said, because he seemed to me to take the typical attitude of Colonel Blimp and to say, "By Gad, Sir, the next war is going to be exactly like the last one." I do not agree, because if it were going to be anything like the last one, perhaps what my hon. Friend behind me wished to happen, that everybody should join up in the approved way, might be the right way of facing up to the problem, but the next war will probably be entirely diferent, and that is why an organisation like the Transport Board should be kept altogether as an organisation, until we know what we want from the board. It seems to me that the request should come from the Government, either from the Ministry of Transport or from the War Office, and—

Captain A. Evans: May I—

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am going to deal with you. The only request that has come from the War Office is for a list of the skilled craftsmen, and that is being complied with.

Captain A. Evans: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the request should come from the War Office. Surely some attention should be given to the recruiting efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who has made speeches in the country and in this House asking big employers of labour to encourage their employés to join the Territorial Army.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I could not have been speaking loudly enough. I tried to impress upon my hon. and gallant Friend that we are dealing with a unit of transport, a unit in this great City of London, and that when war breaks out next time—who knows what will occur?—there may be such a demand for exodus from this city that transport will be all-important. That is the kind of thought that has to be given to this matter. It is no use for the Minister of War to tell us that conditions will be the same as they were in the last War. We are told that the Transport Board have to act as an ordinary employer, but that is not the idea.

Mr. Keeling: In saying that the next war will be very different from the last,


does my hon. and gallant Friend suggest that the defence of London will require fewer men in the next war than it did in the last War?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I think it will require many more men, but if anybody has to give thought to that matter it should be the Government. They can make a plan to include all these great organisations. So far they have made no request to the London Passenger Transport Board except to ask them to rally round the old system; but the old system may be the wrong one. The Ministry of Transport and the War Office have to consider this matter together, and they should go to the Transport Board and ask for what they want when they have decided what it is they want. The question has to be looked at from a different point of view from that which has been taken to-night. After what the Minister has said it would be a very grave step for the House to throw out this Bill. He has told us that if the negotiations between this great board and the Minister during the Committee stage are not satisfactory, he will give us a recommendation to throw it out on Third Reading, although he will not be able to speak upon it at that stage. He having told us that, I cannot believe that we ought to divide against the Bill on Second Reading.
Those who are thinking that the Territorial question is bigger than the question of national Defence are misguided. The Bill is badly needed. It is the first time that this great board have come to us to ask for power, and it would be a very great error on our part if we refused their request to-night to give them those powers, because of a point which has nothing to do with that request.

10.23 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I listened with great interest to the very persuasive speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), and I must confess that he went a good way towards allaying the fears that I had on this question of the Territorials. The speech to which we have just listened was, however, hardly a speech that would completely allay the fears of people who like myself think that something should be said about the right of men to join the Territorial Army. My

hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) suggested that the Minister had said that if the result of the negotiations which it is intended should take place between the London Passenger Transport Board and the Government were not satisfactory, the Government would advise the House to throw the Bill out on Third Reading, but I did not think that the Minister went quite as far as that. The House should have it in mind that between now and the Third Reading very considerable expense may be undertaken by the board and by others who will appear before the Select Committee to explain their views upon the Bill. It seems to me that it would be better to have some more definite undertaking at the present time on the subject of the right of men to join the Territorial Army, rather than to wait until the Third Reading and then have to throw out a Bill which I think most Members of the House, except for the vexed question of Clause 48, feel is a good Bill and ought to be passed.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wallasey said that the next war was not going to be anything like the last, but, if the wars at present raging are any criterion, they seem to be following very much on the lines of the last War. Even, however, if there is a difference, there will still be a necessity to defend London, and, if that necessity remains, it should be the right of every man to join the Territorial Army if he wishes to do so. I do not think there is very much between this side of the House and the other side beyond a misunderstanding. I heard the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and was particularly struck by what he said with regard to men joining the Territorial Army. If I understood him aright, what he said was that he felt that a man should be allowed to join the Territorial Army if he wished, but that there should be no compulsion upon him to do so, and that, if he did join the Territorial Army, his time for training should be paid for by his employer.

Mr. Ede: I said that no encouragement should be given to him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but that, if he did join, I thought it was the duty of his employer to make such an arrangement as is suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. What alarmed me was the


extent to which the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen on the other side of the House were prepared to extend the term "encouragement."

Sir A. Southby: The point I was trying to make was that the hon. Member and myself were agreed that a man should be paid by his employer if he wishes to join the Territorial Army, but that there should be no compulsion upon him to do so. By "compulsion" I mean what I think the hon. Member opposite means by "encouragement." I agree that there should be no question of any compulsion by this employer or any other employer to force men to join the Territorial Army, but I think that, if a man desires to join the Territorial Army, it should not only be made possible for him to do so, but it should be made easy for him. After all, a man is giving up a great deal of his time. Reference has been made in this Debate to the possibility of a man who has a fortnight's holiday on full pay spending one week of his holiday at a Territorial camp. That is what men do at the present time, and all praise to them for doing it; but I think the family of the man should be considered too. The time for which he has a holiday with pay is a time when he might expect to be with his wife and family, and if in addition he wishes to serve his country by joining the Territorial Army, I feel that he should be given an opportunity of doing so and should be paid during the time he is undergoing training.
I think the House finds itself in a position of some considerable difficulty, because there is no doubt that the Bill should go through. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Second Reading said that consultations would go on between the London Passenger Transport Board and the Government. This Bill must have been on the stocks for a considerable time, and it seems a pity that these conversations and consultations have not gone on before the Bill came up to-day for Second Reading. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said that negotiations have now been promised between the London Passenger Transport Board and the Government.
The House would like some assurance that these negotiations will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and I regret that in the speech of my hon. and gal-

lant Friend the Member for Wallasey there was no reference to the negotiations envisaged by the Parliamentary Secretary, and no assurance given that the board will do everything in its power to meet the very real wishes of hon. Members of this House. I think that on the other side of the House, as on this, there are many hon. Members who feel as I do and desire to see facilities given—but no pressure applied—to men who are not key men, to enable them to join the Territorial Army if they so wish. It has been said that in the event of war it would be necessary to evacuate the population of London, presumably in the Transport Board omnibuses. We all know the wonderful work done during the last War by the old London General Omnibus Company's omnibuses, but I cannot see that a man driving a bus would be any less fitted to evacuate the population of London if he had done training in a Territorial unit. If the fate of this Bill is to be decided to-night, having heard the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend who supports the Bill, and having had no real assurance that any endeavour will be made by the board to find a solution, I shall have to vote against the Bill.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Simpson: The easy optimism of many hon. Gentlemen in regard to extended leave and added facilities for staffs is encouraging from one point of view, and one can only hope that on other occasions and in other directions they will be equally generous in their attitude. The great mining communities might be attracted and interested if they were given payment for leave of this kind; but there is no indication that any similar pressure will be exerted on the mining employés. One would be surprised if a Measure of this character was immune from public criticism or comment in this House. Any kind of public service must accept public criticism; but one feels, after listening to speeches from the other side to-night, that a considerable amount of this criticism is directed against public enterprise as such. I do not know what the attitude of hon. Members opposite was when these transport undertakings were in private ownership, and whether they expressed the same views on those occasions, or whether they take a different attitude because this is a public corporation. Reference has been already made to the fact that when the question of holidays with pay was


under discussion in this House, many non. Members who are now suggesting that it is easy and proper for this extended leave to be given, and under Parliamentary pressure, went into the Lobby against that proposal.
Any thinking person will appreciate that the life and safety of the people of this great Metropolis very largely depends on an efficient transport system, and possibly that will be more so in time of war than in ordinary circumstances. The attitude of hon. Members opposite reminds me of a notice in rather unfortunately worded language in an English-Japanese transport office:
Hand us your goods and we will send them in all directions.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "Give us your man power," and they will do precisely the same with it in war circumstances. We cannot imagine that people can be better employed or more effectively serve the nation in case of emergency than in fulfilling their ordinary functions of giving their skilled transport service to this great community. The promise has been made of consultation and discussion and of further consideration of this problem with the appropriate Government Departments. I am certain that if any other interest had given a promise of that kind no further attention or support would have been given by hon. Members opposite to any claim that was being advanced against it. When the representative of the Government suggests that, under threat of opposition on the Third Reading, when there would be no opportunity for discussion, the board must give way, that seems equally unreasonable. We maintain that, on the merits of the services which these people render in the shape of national service, which is more urgent and vital under war conditions than in peace time, there is no case for the Amendment that has been moved from the opposite side of the House.
In view of the accommodation and the effort that have been made by the board to continue their negotiations, it is only misguided enthusiasm and zeal in a particularly bad cause that persuades hon. Members opposite to persist in their opposition, instead of accepting the gesture on the undertaking of the board, thus enabling them to discharge their

appropriate functions and duties to this great City in time of war, and, at the same time, do what is possibly appropriate in regard to the services which have been under discussion.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Denman: I beg to move: "That the Debate be now adjourned."
I think this will get us out of the real difficulty in which many of us at present feel ourselves to be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The proposal evidently is one that clearly meets the wishes of those who are not prepared to see this Bill have a Second Reading without far more definite assurances than we have yet had that serious consideration will be given to the real problem of the Territorial services. If we adjourn the Debate, we can have a Division later on, if no agreement is come to, without any further Debate whatever. At 7.30, on some day selected, the House could divide on the Second Reading. On the other hand, we could hope that, if the Debate is adjourned, time would be given to the board to see how strong is the feeling in this House, not that we want the least pressure put upon anybody. [Interruption.] Certainly not. Our point of view is simply that, if a man sacrifices a week in the service of his country, he should not be penalised by losing his payment for that period.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: The hon. Member has suggested to the House a course which no doubt he feels will contribute to a solution of this problem, but I cannot see that an adjournment of the Debate would be a wise course to take. The issue is plainly before the House, and as hon. Members have put their points to the House it is only right for the House to come to a decision. I think it is better that a decision should be made. Hon. Members know that if the Bill proceeds very useful improvements in transport will go forward and that if the Bill is rejected these improvements will be stopped. For myself I do not think any of the issues which have been brought before the House to-night are of such a character as to stop these improvements in transport facilities being undertaken. But what is clearly a secondary question is also in the minds of hon. Members in regard to Clause 48, but as these points


have not been discussed I will not go into them now. On the question of the Territorial Army my difficulty is this: The public authority with which I am associated in London have granted very wide facilities, but that did not stop hon. Members opposite putting down an Amendment to a Bill promoted by the London County Council on similar lines to the present Amendment, and we were charged quite recently with obstructing recruiting for the Territorial Army. I am glad that hon. Members opposite are perfectly satisfied with the London County Council, but I cannot understand why they were not satisfied when we were pursuing the same policy in principle.

On the question of the Territorial Army the House has really to consider whether it is going to lay down the principle that in every private Bill brought before the House, whatever the conditions of the industry and the practical difficulties in the way of the industry, this condition must apply. That is the logic of the arguments which have been put forward. Would it not be much wiser and more equitable to bring in legislation requiring every employer of labour in the land to give holidays with pay for the purposes of the Territorial Army? I am not arguing whether they should do so or not, but would not that be a tidier and more logical way of doing the thing? No doubt we should move Amendments to such a Bill to provide additional holidays with pay up to the standard provided by the London Passenger Transport Board, and I think it would be an improvement also in the conditions in the mining industry and in the cotton industry—

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the right hon. Member that he must connect his argument with the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.

Mr. Morrison: I am exceedingly anxious not to be controversial about a matter which need not be controversial, and I suggest to the House, with great respect, that it is best to face the issue now. The issue is whether a particular undertaking should be picked out and have conditions imposed upon it, or whether it would not be wiser, having settled this matter one way or the other, to consider at an appropriate point whether there should not be general legislation applying those conditions everywhere. I always

took the view that the board should be substantially free from meticulous political interference, and I think I was right in taking that view. I thought that hon. Members opposite took that view much more strongly than I did, but now politicians seemed to be intervening in force on a point of management. I think that is a very doubtful thing to do.
It would be a pity if the important improvements provided for in this Bill were to be prevented because of this issue. There are ways of approach to the board that can be undertaken, but the House ought to decide to-night whether these further improvements in the transport facilities of London shall take place or whether they shall be stopped. If the House decides that they shall not take place, presumably the Board will have to act in accordance with that decision, but in spite of the relative importance of the issues that have been raised, I do not think they are of sufficient importance to warrant the out-of-hand rejection by the House of these much-needed improvements in the travelling facilities of London.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. George Balfour: I think that, broadly speaking, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. Morrison) has correctly put the issues which are before the House. During the last 20 years, there have been great changes in the Private Bill Procedure of the House, and in recent years every opportunity has been taken when a private Bill, under the special procedure, has been before the House, to attach conditions which should have been the subject of public legislation. Therefore, the House will understand that I quite agree with the view which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has expressed to-night. I also think that the decision should be taken on the issue now. I hope hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will not think it impertinent of me if I say that they ought always to remember that under the Private Bill Procedure, there is a very special procedure set up whereby subjects such as that of Clause 48 can be dealt with in the Committee, where the arguments of both sides, for and against, can be put. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the general issue should be dealt with by public legislation, and that the opportunity should not


be taken under the Private Bill Procedure to thrust forward these special matters, which are broad in application and applicable to many undertakings similar to the London Passenger Transport Board.

10.49 p.m.

Captain Sir Derrick Gunston: With regard to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour), who I think was not in the House earlier—

Mr. Balfour: I have been present during the whole Debate.

Sir D. Gunston: —the matter of further facilities being given by the London Passenger Transport Board to Territorials could hardly be raised in the Committee upstairs.

Mr. Balfour: May I point out to the hon. and gallant Baronet that I did not suggest it could? I said that it was a matter for general legislation, and ought not to be thrust before the House now

Sir D. Gunston: May I bring the House back to the issue which is before it?

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is not the issue before the House the Adjournment of the Debate?

Sir D. Gunston: The Question before the House is whether the Debate should be adjourned. The Parliamentary Secretary told us quite frankly that in the matter of facilities for recruiting the board had not helped, and he said his view was supported by the War Office—a very grave statement to be made about such an authority as the London Passenger Transport Board. He then told us that he did not want to lose the Bill, and he suggested that the best way out would be to give it a Second Reading, and by the time it returned here for Third Reading perhaps some accommodation would have been come to. I would remind the House that after Second Reading the Bill goes upstairs to Committee, and it is an expensive process to get it through. It would be much more difficult to reject the Bill on Third Reading than now. A very valuable suggestion has been made that the Debate should now be adjourned. That means that when the Debate is resumed the House will know exactly where it is, and we shall see whether proper facilities have been given

to the employés of the Transport Board to join the Territorials. I suggest that it would be much wiser to agree to the Adjournment now. If an accommodation were come to the Bill would only take a few minutes when it returned here for Third Reading.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I should like first of all to enter some dissent from what I think was a presumption on the part of the hon. Member who has just spoken. He said that when the Bill returned here for Third Reading it would only take a few minutes. He is in a very high position but he has not reached the position of Speaker, and I hope the Speaker will maintain our rights. So far as I can gather, instead of proceeding with the Motion for the rejection of the Bill in order to give this so-called encouragement to joining the Territorials, hon. Members opposite now want the Debate adjourned in order to produce the same effect as their original Motion. Now what would happen? If after the Adjournment hon. Members opposite who supported the Motion for the rejection of the Bill do not carry their point, then the Bill will be rejected. Why not be honest about it?
I seldom find fairness among Conservatives when it comes to discussing working people, and I do not think they are fair to-night. What are they asking? That the London Passenger Transport Board should grant £4—that is the average wage, I understand—in order that for one week members of their staff should be Territorials. If hon. Members opposite were fair they would recognise that when a man joins the Territorials he is serving, not the transport board but the State—he is training for the community. The transport board are therefore asked to pay him for serving the State, not for serving the board. What are you going to do here? In my own division—

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that the question before the House is "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Mr. Buchanan: Others made long speeches on the Adjournment Motion, before I rose. The Adjournment Motion is meant to defeat the Bill without Debate. But may I make this one point? I am staggered at this figure of less than 400. In my division half, if not two-thirds of


the men are unemployed and a large number are in the Territorials. The London transport employé who is serving the country in the Territorials gets £4 a week, my constituent gets nothing. If you want to get decent people to serve, it is for the Government to introduce a Bill giving every unemployed man £4 a week while he is serving. Make it a Government charge.

Mr. Speaker: It would be unfair to call other hon. Members to order for not keeping to the question and to allow the hon. Member to continue.

Mr. Buchanan: I only want to say this about the Adjournment. I think hon. Members should be perfectly frank and reject the Bill if they think it ought to be rejected, rather than say to the board "If you will not do what we want, we will humiliate you when the Bill comes up again." The House ought to face the proposition which is before it and either reject or accept the Bill. May I add that this Debate shows that we are getting nearer and nearer to the open advocacy of a conscript army.

10.58 p.m.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): It has been suggested to me that I should say something as to what the position will be in regard to the Bill, if this Debate should be adjourned. The House will understand that I express no view on any of the matters which have been discussed to-night, nor do I express any view as to whether or not the Debate should be adjourned. I only want to remind the House of this simple fact. If the Bill is to go forward it must—I cannot give the exact dates—be before the Committee by the end of this month or thereabouts, in order to have a reasonable chance of passing in this Session. The position therefore is that the Bill will not be endangered by reasons connected with the machinery in regard to Private Bill procedure, if it is read a Second time before the end of this month. If, therefore, the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate were to be carried, it would be my duty to put down the Bill from time to time on certain days for 2.45 and if it were objected to, then some time before the end of this month I should again put it down for debate at 7.30 in the evening.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: The House is grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for the guidance which he has given us. One right hon. Gentleman and two hon. Gentlemen have spoken in opposition to the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), a Motion which I was prepared to move if he had not moved it. Those who have spoken in opposition to it were not present during that part of the Debate which led to the Motion being moved.

Mr. Buchanan: I was here.

Mr. Williams: Then I do not think the hon. Member could have fully appreciated the significance of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. He expressed in plain terms the opinion of the Government in regard to the attitude of the board. He went on to say that if between now and Third Reading the attitude of the board was not altered, the House would be free to reject the Bill on Third Reading. That would be a difficult matter because we could not debate this question then. On Third Reading we can only debate those things which are in the Bill. Therefore, we should be in an almost impossible position. On the other hand, if the Debate to-night is adjourned and the board are given a fortnight or thereabouts to consider the position in respect of the points raised by some of my hon. Friends, then the Bill will be put down for further consideration at 7.30 one evening. If a settlement has been arrived at the proceedings will take a few minutes and there will be no interruption of the difficult programme which the Patronage Secretary has to get through.
It is true that the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) will be free, if he wishes, to prolong the Debate, but the chances are that he will have to do it alone. Although I have every respect for his great capacity in that direction, I shall not be his ally. The proposal of the hon. Member for Central Leeds is worthy of consideration. It is clear that a large number of Members are in the same position as myself in not being satisfied with the attitude of the board but recognising the undesirability of rejecting a Bill which proposes certain traffic improvements in the Metropolis, in an area in which my own constituency is


situated. That is the difficulty with which we are faced. Our proposal means that we tell the board that they must think again. It does not mean the rejection of the Bill. The House will be rendering a valuable service if it postpones the Debate to give the board an opportunity to think again.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: It is interesting to hear so many Members who have not been much interested in the Debate until the last half hour desire now to have the Debate concluded. I disagree with the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) in his interpretation of the reason why the Adjournment was asked for. While we have certain customs or pretences to maintain in this House, let us for once face this issue clearly. The Adjournment was moved because of the objections of certain hon. Members on the other side to the attitude of the London Passenger Transport Board to the Territorials. The hon. Member for South Croydon is interested not so much in the Bill as in this question of the Territorials. After listening yesterday to the Government telling us how they had succeeded in establishing the defences of this country it is interesting to find—

Mr. Speaker: That is not concerned with the question of adjourning the Debate.

Mr. Davidson: I was going to point out that the proposal for the Adjournment is caused by the fear of hon. Members opposite that the Government are not doing their job efficiently in the matter of the Territorial Force.

Mr. Speaker: That subject is very remote.

Mr. Davidson: It may be remote, but it is also very true. However, I trust that those hon. Members who have any pride in retaining the customs of this House will not agree to the Adjournment after a full-dress Debate such as we have had. By such an Adjournment we should be telling the people of London that because a certain request has not been acceded to this Bill is to be postponed until the transport board give way. As a comparatively young Member I feel that the action of hon. Members in asking for this Adjournment shows deplorable Parliamentary tactics and can only be described as contemptible in the highest degree.

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 131.

Division No. 124.]
AYES.
[11.8 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Colman, N. C. D.
Fyfe, D. P. M.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Goldie, N. B.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gower, Sir R. V.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Apsley, Lord
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Granville, E. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Cross, R. H.
Grimston, R. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Crossley, A. C.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Beechman, N. A.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Guest. Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Bernays, R. H.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hambro, A. V.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hannah, I. C.


Blaker, Sir R.
Dawson, Sir P.
Harbord, A.


Boulton, W. W.
De Chair, S. S.
Hartington, Marquess of


Boyce, H. Leslie
Denville, Alfred
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Brass, Sir W.
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Dugdale, Captain T. L
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Duggan, H. J.
Higgs, W. F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Holmes, J. S.


Bull, B. B.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Elmley, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Butcher, H. W.
Emery, J. F
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Carver, Major W. H.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Hunter, T.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Errington, E.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Channon, H.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Christie, J. A.
Everard, W. L.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Findlay, Sir E.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)




Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Petherick, M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Leech, Sir J. W.
Pilkington, R.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Lees-Jones, J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Procter, Major H. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Radford, E. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Levy, T.
Ramsbotham, H.
Tate, Mavis C.


Liddall, W. S.
Rankin, Sir R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Lindsay, K. M.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Rayner, Major R. H.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


M'Connell, Sir J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Titchfield, Marquess of


McCorquodale, M. S.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


McKie, J. H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wakefield, W. W.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Salt, E. W.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Sandys, E. D.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Scott, Lord William
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Munro, P.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Mr. Denman and Mr. Keeling.


Patrick, C. M.
Somerset, T.





NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Ammon, C. G.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hardie, Agnes
Naylor, T. E.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Parker, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Pearson, A.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Plugge, Capt, L. F.


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hepworth, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benson, G.
Hicks, E. G.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Bevan, A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Rowlands, G.


Broad, F. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jagger, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Burke, W. A.
John, W.
Simpson, F. B.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Daggar, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kirkwood, D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lathan, G.
Stokes, R. R.


Day, H.
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Dobbie, W.
Leach, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Leonard, W.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Fleming, E. L.
McGhee, H. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Foot, D. M.
McGovern, J.
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, B. W.
MacLaren, A.
Walkden, A. G.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Watkins, F. C.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Watson, W. McL.


Gledhill, G.
Maitland, A.
Westwood, J.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Mathers, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Maxton, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)



Gridley, Sir A. B.
Messer, F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sir R. Glyn and Sir J. Nall.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Montague, F.



Original Question put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed upon Thursday, next.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on consideration of Question,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants in Aid.

Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £5, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for Sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's

Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants in Aid.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-One Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.